Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON CAMPS, GERMANY (AIR-RAID CASUALTIES)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received respecting casualties among British prisoners of war alleged to be caused by bombing; approximately the number of such casualties; whether the Protecting Power has made representations on this matter; and whether he has any further information in regard to the deaths of prisoners in concentration camps alleged by the German Government to be due to bombing but suspected to be by execution.

The Minister of State (Mr. Richard Law): It is unfortunately the case that a number of British prisoners of war have lost their lives in Allied air raids on the Continent, but as the figures cannot be given with any degree of accuracy, I should prefer not to attempt an estimate. Under the German prisoner of war system there are a number of main camps to which are attached subsidiary work camps and detachments forming several thousand units scattered all over the country. Some of these camps have been or are situated near legitimate military targets in contravention of Article 9 of the Geneva Convention. All available information as to the location of prisoner of war camps is promptly passed to the Allied air forces and is used in briefing the air crews. Whenever the delegates of the Protecting Power during their periodical visits to camps have observed that our prisoners were dangerously close to a military target, they have made imme-

diate complaints to the German authorities and demanded the transfer of the camp to a safer site. As soon as the details reached this country, His Majesty's Government have made strong representations to the German Government through the Protecting Power. I regret to say that in several cases the German authorities have not complied with these demands. Furthermore, as an additional precaution the German authorities have been urged to provide adequate air raid protection for our prisoners. There is no evidence to show that casualties in prisoner of war camps said to be due to bombing were in fact executions.

Mr. Sorensen: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he feels that, on the whole, there has been some improvement in this matter? Has he any information more specific than that already available, regarding the political prisoners alleged to have been killed by bombing some few weeks ago; and particularly the Communist and Socialist leaders?

Mr. Law: Sir, I have no more information than I have given in reply to the Question. With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I certainly would not expect that this situation would get worse; I would expect an improvement in it. Air crews are very carefully briefed on this matter and, naturally, they exercise the greatest possible care.

Mr. Sorensen: May I take it that there is no adequate evidence yet of the way in which the political leaders lost their lives?

Mr. Law: No, Sir, I have no further information.

Oral Answers to Questions — DODECANESE (GREEK INHABITANTS)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give an assurance that the Greek inhabitants of the Dodecanese islands will on their liberation be treated as Greeks and allies and not as Italian citizens.

Mr. Law: The post-war status of the Dodecanese cannot be decided now, and the formal position of the inhabitants will have to await this settlement. There is, of course, no question of maintaining or re-imposing Italian administration during the interim period before the future of the islands has been decided.

Mr. Astor: While realising that the postwar settlement cannot be prejudiced, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that these people will, in the meantime, be treated as they are, loyal Greeks and friends of Great Britain?

Mr. Law: I can certainly give my hon. Friend the assurance that after liberation, and pending the settlement, the inhabitants of the islands will not be treated as enemies or as ex-enemies but as friends.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he regards the Dodecanese as former Italian colonies, or as part of metropolitan Italy?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB STATES (CONFERENCE)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has been officially informed of the agreement reached at the recent conference of Arab States; and, if so, will he circulate the text of it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Law: I have not yet received the official text of the proceedings. His Majesty's Government are watching with sympathy and interest the efforts of the Arab States to reduce the barriers between them. So far as I can judge from the preliminary reports which have been published, a gratifying measure of agreement has been achieved at the preparatory meeting in Cairo as to the direction in which further progress should be made.

Mr. Astor: Will my right hon. Friend consider circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the summary of conclusions which has reached London?

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, I will certainly consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (BRITISH AMBASSADOR)

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will further clarify the position of a person holding personal rank of ambassador, who possesses no letters of credential from His Majesty, and is accredited to no foreign Government.

Sir Malcolm Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will define the term "per-

sonal rank of ambassador"; and whether this rank is recognised in international practice.

Mr. Law: The personal rank of ambassador is one which, subject to the approval of His Majesty, may be conferred upon an individual charged with the representation of this country abroad or with the conduct of negotiations of any kind on behalf of His Majesty's Government, for the purpose of enhancing his status and thus facilitating the performance of his task. The conferring of such personal rank is a common practice.

Mr. Boothby: Does not my right hon. Friend think it rather ridiculous to give a man the personal status and rank of ambassador, and to refuse to recognise the Government to which he is in fact accredited?

Earl Winterton: Can my right hon. Friend publish in a White Paper, and lay it on the Table or in the Library, the instances in which this rank has been conferred in the past? Why is it—if his answer is correct, as no doubt it is—that when His Majesty's Government are represented abroad in most important negotiations, this rank is not conferred?

Mr. Law: I think my Noble Friend did not quite understand the reply I gave just now. I did not say that it was common practice to confer this particular rank; I said it was common practice in these matters to confer personal rank higher than the actual rank of the diplomatic officer concerned.

Mr. Boothby: Has it ever been conferred in the past?

Mr. Law: Personal rank?

Mr. Boothby: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Law: Personal rank has been conferred in the past. I would not be sure of personal rank of ambassador, but certainly there must be many instances of a counsellor with the personal rank of a minister.

Sir M. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Provisional Government of France grants to the right hon. Member for the St. George's Division (Mr. Duff Cooper) the privileges, immunities and precedence usually accorded to fully accredited ambassadors.

Mr. Law: Yes, Sir, so far as I am aware.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: May I ask if we grant the same privileges and immunities to M. Massigli in London?

Mr. Law: This Question refers to my right hon. Friend the Member for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper). I think I shall have to have notice of that further question.

Oral Answers to Questions — LIBERATED COUNTRIES (ALLIED REPRESENTATIVES)

Captain Cobb: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the joint responsibilities that the Allies have assumed for the post-war settlement of Europe, the British and U.S.A. Governments have representatives in the liberated countries of South-East and Central Europe.

Mr. Law: His Majesty's Government and the United States Government have not yet got representatives in the partially liberated countries of South-East and Central Europe, since the Allied Governments concerned have not yet returned. When they return to their countries, it is His Majesty's Government's intention that British diplomatic representatives should accompany them. If my hon. and gallant Friend also has in mind enemy countries, I can assure him that provision has been made for His Majesty's Government and the United States Government to be represented on the Control Commissions which have been or will be established to enforce the armistice terms.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES

Mr. Stourton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) the number of ambassadors and ministers accredited to the Court of St. James and members of their staffs who are accorded diplomatic privileges, and the number of ambassadorial and ministerial officials excluded from these immunities;
(2) the number of ambassadors and ministers accredited to foreign Governments and their staffs temporarily domiciled in Great Britain who are granted diplomatic privileges; and the number of ambassadorial and ministerial officials excluded from advantages.

Mr. Law: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the reply:
At the present time there are 22 ambassadors and 15 ministers accredited to the Court of St. James and three missions without titular heads are in charge of chargés d'affaires. The staffs of all these missions, holding diplomatic rank, total 359 persons.
The diplomatic representatives accredited to the heads of Allied States resident in this country or to their Governments temporarily established here include two ambassadors, 34 ministers and 19 chargés d'affaires, eight of the ministers and nine of the charges d'affaires being concurrently members of the Diplomatic Body accredited to the Court of St. James. Their staffs of diplomatic rank number 81, 15 of whom perform concurrent duties in missions accredited to this Court.
The diplomatic missions referred to above have, in addition to members of the staff who hold diplomatic rank, subordinate staff, who possess certain immunities, but whose privileges are less extensive than the diplomatic staff. Further, certain immunities are granted to servants employed in the households or offices of the heads of missions. The numbers of these persons are as follows:
Subordinate staff:

(a) Missions accredited to the Court of St. James, 325.
(b) Missions accredited to Allied Governments in London, 45.

Domestic staff:

(a) Missions accredited to the Court of St. James, 498.
(b) Missions accredited to Allied Governments in London, 6.

I have no information regarding the number of other persons who may be employed in foreign diplomatic missions whose names have not been notified to me and who do not therefore qualify for privileges or immunities of any kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Male Cooks, Scarborough (Pay)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that male cooks employed by the R.A.F. in a Scar-


borough hotel earn less than unskilled labour owing to the unfavourable conditions of pay for overtime; and if he will take steps to put this right.

The Secretary of State for Air (Sir Archibald Sinclair): The conditions of service of civilian male mess grades employed by the Air Ministry are now under discussion with the trade unions concerned. I hope that as a result the earnings of these men will be improved.

Mr. Spearman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter has been considered with the trades unions for four months now? If it takes his Department such a long time to deal with that body, is there any need to hold up the increase in pay on that account?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. My Department is not alone in dealing with this: it is being dealt with by the Whitley Council procedure, representing all the Departments negotiating with the trade unions.

Mr. George Griffiths: Will the increased wage date back to the beginning of the negotiations?

Sir A. Sinclair: I would be very willing to consider that point when I get the result of the negotiations.

Mr. G. Griffiths: That is what generally happens with trade unions, so I want the right hon. Gentleman to act up to the practice.

Demobilisation

Mr. Salt: asked the Secretary of State for Air how a man, who has served four years in the R.A.F. in Great Britain, will be considered for demobilisation having recently been sent to India.

Sir A. Sinclair: Under the Government scheme for release or transfer from the Forces, the Service authorities will make every effort to release men in their turn, wherever they may be serving.

Hansard Reporters (Release)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that two of the most expert reporters from the Official Gallery of the House of Commons are serving in the R.A.F.; how many applications have been made for their release; and with what result.

Sir A. Sinclair: The case of one of the airmen referred to was the subject of correspondence about a year ago, but so far as I am aware no formal application has been received for release of either of these men. If it is now decided to pursue their cases, it would be for you, Mr. Speaker, to send applications to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in the first instance, considers all applications for the release of civil servants from the Forces.

Commander King-Hall: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that if he does receive an official request for the release of these officers of the House, it will, in fact, be a request from the whole of this honourable House; and will he, therefore, immediately accede to it?

Sir A. Sinclair: It will come to me through the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Overseas Service (Home Postings)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will consider applications for compassionate release or posting of urgent cases from relatives of men who are serving overseas.

Sir A. Sinclair: I can assure the hon. Member that all applications from relatives for the return of airmen from overseas receive careful consideration. After investigation, the facts are communicated by signal to the command concerned and the decision whether or not the airman can be posted home is left to the discretion of the A.O.C.-in-C.

Mr. Bellenger: Does not the Air Ministry insist that application shall come, in the first place, from the man to his commanding officer if he is serving overseas?

Sir A. Sinclair: No, Sir. There seems to be some confusion between applications for compassionate posting and application for release from the Royal Air Force, and between applications for compassionate posting at home and those in, overseas commands. In the case of corn-passionate postings from overseas commands the facts are investigated by the Air Ministry here, and are supplied to the air officer commanding.

Food Regulations (Offences)

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what was the disciplinary action which followed the investigation into the cases of offences


against the food regulations by officers of 54 Group, Training Command, Regent's Park.

Sir A. Sinclair: The commander-in-chief concerned, after reviewing the summary of evidence, decided that the institution of court-martial proceedings was not warranted. Three of the officers concerned were, however, awarded a reproof by the commander-in-chief, which was coupled, in the case of the senior officers, with a formal expression of the Air Council's grave displeasure.

Mr. Hopkinson: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that is sufficient disciplinary action in a case of that sort?

Sir A. Sinclair: Yes, Sir. A very experienced commander-in-chief considered this case and came to this decision, which I support.

Beer Supplies, Italy

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he can inquire into the supply of beer to units in Italy, where American units get six bottles per head per week and men of the R.A.F. not more than a half-bottle.

Sir A. Sinclair: I am looking into this matter and will communicate with my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as I receive a report.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Has not N.A.A.F.I. already taken over breweries in Italy, so that there is no longer any need to send beer there from this country?

Sir A. Sinclair: I think there is a great shortage of supplies and I entirely agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) that we should do all we can to increase them.

Mr. Walkden: But cannot supplies be stepped up there?

Sir A. Sinclair: We do all we can.

AERONAUTICS (TECHNICAL COLLEGE)

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Aircraft Production whether any progress has been made as to arrangements for higher technical education in aeronautics in this country.

The Minister of Aircraft Production (Sir Stafford Cripps): Yes, Sir. The Aeronautical Research Committee were asked by me to prepare a report on this matter and as a result of their report I appointed an inter-Departmental Committee, under the chairmanship of Sir Roy Fedden, to work out a detailed plan based upon the report of the Aeronautical Research Committee. Sir Roy Fedden's Committee has recently reported and has recommended the setting up of a college of Aeronautics to give advanced instruction in aeronautical science and engineering in all branches. It is further recommended that the college should be administered under the Minister of Education by a governing body representing the various interested sections of the community. Until such a college can be built it is suggested that a start should be made as soon as possible in temporary accommodation.
The Government have accepted in principle the recommendations of the Committee and convenient premises for temporary adaptation are being made available by the Air Ministry though not at the location indicated in the report. The suggested permanent site is also under review. As the matter is of wide interest it is proposed to publish the report of the Fedden Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Astor: While welcoming this development may I ask if the right hon. and learned Gentleman realises how important it is that this college should be placed near one of the great universities and not somewhere out in the country, away from all academic atmosphere?

Sir S. Cripps: It is hoped that the college will be situated close to at least two of the main universities.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: Could the Minister say whether the college will be open to Empire students only or to foreign students as well?

Sir S. Cripps: It is recommended that it should be open to foreign students as well.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the Minister say whether academic opinion has been sounded about the site in question?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. There were representatives of the universities on the Committee.

Mr. Bowles: Are the main universities the provincial universities?

Sir S. Cripps: There are many main universities in this country.

PARCELS FOR TROOPS (REGISTRATION)

Major Gates: asked the Postmaster-General what is the reason for the Post Office instruction dated 1st September, 1943, which now prohibits parents and others from registering parcels to our Forces in France and other European countries; and whether, in view of the fact that there is growing evidence of the failure of non-registered parcels to reach their intended recipients, he will consider rescinding this instruction.

The Postmaster-General (Captain Crookshank): The Post Office registration system does not apply, and never has applied, to parcels for members of the Expeditionary Forces serving overseas but only to the letter post. I am not aware of any growing evidence of the failure of parcels to reach their intended recipients, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will forward me particulars of any cases he has in mind, I will gladly have inquiry made.

REQUISITIONED FLATS (RELEASE)

Commander King-Hall: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works whether he will take steps to de-requisition the service flats of whose address he has been informed.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): The flats referred to in the Question have been occupied by the French military authorities and are about to be vacated. No decision has yet been reached as to the future use of the building, but we hope to be able to de-requisition a number of flats at early date.

Commander King-Hall: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 250 of these flats, each with a kitchen and bathroom? What possible use can be made of small kitchens and bathrooms for office purposes? Will he also bear in mind the fact that housing accommodation is very short?

Mr. Hicks: I am well aware of the point which my hon. and gallant Friend has put, and we are equally concerned, with him, about making these flats available for the purposes for which they were intended.

Mr. Buchanan: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of some urgency? Will he take urgent steps to have these flats released in order to provide more housing accommodation?

Mr. Hicks: Yes, Sir.

ROYAL NAVY

Officers' Marriage Allowance

Vice-Admiral Taylor: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, in view of the recent alterations in pay, he will reconsider the question of naval officers' marriage allowances in order to place them on the same basis as the other two Services.

The First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Officers of all three Services have, since 1st January, 1942, been on a uniform system of Marriage and Children's Allowance, though officers commissioned before that date had the option of remaining under the old systems in force in their respective Services or of coming under the new uniform system.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Minister aware that the naval officers' marriage scheme alone of the three Services, is a contributory one, and that in all other respects married service is the same? Will he not remove this discrimination against naval officers and put all on the same non-contributory basis?

Mr. Alexander: We have been into this matter again and again, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows, and I cannot promise that there will be any change.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Does not the Minister think that the senior Service should come first, and not last?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise this matter again on the Adjournment at the first opportunity.

Barracks (Blankets, Issue)

Mr. Lipson: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if the men in the naval barracks, of which the name has been sent to him, can be provided with two blankets each instead of only the one they are given at present.

Mr. Alexander: The issue of an extra blanket to ratings accommodated in the main blocks of the naval barracks referred to is not considered necessary, as these buildings are warmed by fires or central heating. Extra blankets can be issued on loan on application, and men accommodated in temporary huts in outlying camps are automatically provided with additional blankets.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of these ratings are young men who are not yet hardened to naval life, and who suffer great inconvenience from the present arrangements? Is it not a fact that they have to pay if they want the loan of additional blankets?

Mr. Alexander: Not for a loan.

Mr. Lipson: Will the Minister give the matter further consideration? The blankets are there. Why should they not be made available?

Mr. Alexander: If there is real need for a loan blankets are issued. I rather suspect that this particular complaint may have been caused by the fact that during the cold snap the men of these barracks, like all other citizens, were recently under the heating ban for about a week.

Pensions Increases

Lieutenant-Commander Hutchison: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether payment of the increased rates of pension referred to in the Pensions (Increase) Act, 1944, has now been made to all the categories of naval pensioners entitled to these increases.

Mr. Alexander: Up to now over 8,000 awards of pension at the increased rates have been made to the various categories of eligible naval pensioners. The remaining claims will be dealt with as rapidly as staff difficulties permit.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Can the Minister tell us how many claims have yet to be dealt with?

Mr. Alexander: I would like notice of that but, speaking from memory, I think about 30,000.

Mr. Brown: Then at this rate of progress it will take in this, as in other cases, about six years to wipe off the arrears?

Mr. Alexander: No, I think not.

COLONIAL EMPIRE

Technical Training, East Africa

Colonel Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, now that Makerere has ceased to function as a technical training school and, in view of the future need for assistant civil and mechanical engineers, surveyors, stenographers, book-keepers and so on, he will review what facilities exist for technical and vocational training for African youth of both sexes throughout the East African Colonies, with a view to the formulation of a comprehensive scheme on a regional basis and at suitable centres for an extension in these directions in coming years as and when instructors and equipment become available.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Colonel Oliver Stanley): Full professional training will, I hope, be on a regional basis and the question of establishing a school of civil engineering at Makerere is now under consideration. Other vocational and technical education is generally best treated as a territorial responsibility and all the Governments concerned have planned, or are considering plans, for greatly expanded facilities for those purposes.

Legislative Councils (Non-official Members)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will consider abolishing the system under which non-official members of legislative councils representing European communities are nominated by Governors of Colonies and not elected and replacing it by a procedure more in consonance with the times.

Colonel Stanley: When the proposed constitutional changes in the Gold Coast take effect Fiji will be the only Colony where such a provision operates. I see no reason to make a change.

Ex-Servicemen (Settlement)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that numbers of all ranks now in the Services are anxious, on demobilisation, to consider residence in the Colonies, either as settlers on the land or in Government or commercial service; and whether he will facilitate information and co-operation and expedite the issue of statements as to likely openings and details of steps to be taken in the registration of applicants and the formulation of information.

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir. But I must emphasise that for climatic and other reasons opportunities for permanent settlement in the Colonial Empire by Europeans are very limited. As regards employment in Government service, a statement on post-war recruitment was issued by my Department last month and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend a copy.

Women (Transport Facilities)

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many women have, within the last three months, received transport facilities to the Colonies; and how far newly married British wives of Dominion soldiers are given precedence in that respect over men time-expired, discharged or ex-prisoners of war who are now awaiting their return in this country after years of absence from home.

Colonel Stanley: The number of women who have been provided with transport facilities to the Colonies since the 19th July, 1944, is 892. This includes officials, non-Government employees, returning residents, and wives of men normally resident or employed in the Colonies. In addition 205 passages were arranged for children. The second part of the Question does not appear to be applicable to the Colonies. If any case should occur no precedence would be given.

Lady Apsley: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend satisfied that no ex-prisoners of war are awaiting transport either to the Colonies or to the Dominions?

Colonel Stanley: That is another question. There are prisoners of war awaiting repatriation.

NIGERIAN ADMINISTRATION STAFFS (PENSIONS)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made in the formulation of an adequate pension scheme for Nigerian Administration Staffs, and whether the representations made by the Federal Union of Native Administration Staffs have received sympathetic consideration.

Colonel Stanley: The provision of superannuation benefits for Native Administration staffs in Nigeria is under consideration, but I am not in a position to make a statement at present. I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject as soon as possible.

PALESTINE (JEWISH IMMIGRANTS)

Major Gates: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why the District Commissioner for the Southern District of Palestine has recently refused to requisition the houses of German settlers in Sarona near Tel-Aviv in order to make accommodation available for Jewish immigrant victims of Nazi oppression.

Colonel Stanley: I have no information on the subject but I am making inquiries from the officer administering the Government of Palestine.

JAMAICA (BANANA INDUSTRY)

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can give the composition of the committee set up by the Governor of Jamaica to deal with the recent damage done by hurricane to the banana industry; whether he is aware that there is no representative of the industry on the committee and that the committee has refused to recognise representatives of the banana growers.

Colonel Stanley: The hon. Member, no doubt, has in mind the committee appointed by the Governor to advise him on the requests made by the banana industry for financial assistance. Its work is completed now that decisions on those requests have been taken on the lines stated in my reply to the hon. Member on 27th September. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members of this ad hoc Committee, which included a number of persons experienced in matters concerned with financial assist-


ance to the banana industry. No question of this committee according recognition to the banada growers appears to have arisen, as no further representations were made beyond the initial requests upon which they were appointed to advise.

Captain Peter Macdonald: Was there any representative of the banana industry on the committee?

Colonel Stanley: I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend can have heard my answer. The committee was appointed to consider a specific request put up by the banana industry itself.

Captain Macdonald: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the decision was very unsatisfactory?

Colonel Stanley: No, I am not aware of that. I believe that the decision, which involves the taxpayers of this country in a large sum of money, provides a very adequate basis for the banana industry to rehabilitate itself.
Following is a list of members of the Committee:
R. W. Taylor, C.M.G., C.B.E., Financial Secretary and Treasurer (Chairman);
Sir Alfred D'Costa, Privy Councillor, Director of various companies and Vice-Chairman of the Produce Advisory Board;
Hon. H. E. Allan, O.B.E., Privy Councillor, Member of the Legislative Council, Member, Board of Management Jamaica Agricultural Society and of the Agricultural Loan Societies Board;
Sir Gilbert Wainwright, retired Manager of the Bank of Nova Scotia, and Chairman of the Banana-Industry Aid Board;
H. V, Alexander, C.B.E., Solicitor, Company Director, Chairman of the Agricultural Loan Societies Board and Vice-Chairman of the Food Production Coordinating Committee;
H. H. Croucher, Acting Director of Agriculture;
E. L. Jack, M.B.E., Manager Agricultural Loan Societies Board;
W. D. B. Bruce, Food Controller and competent authority;
G. G. R. Sharp, Superintendent of Banana Purchases and Chairman, Banana Disposals Committee.

Mr. Riley: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what it is intended to do with the surplus receipts from the sale of Jamaican bananas, which are now likely to be at the disposal of the Government; and whether any undertaking can be given that the surplus receipts will be used for the future stabilisation of the industry.

Colonel Stanley: His Majesty's Government can give no promise at present about the disposal of any surplus which may result from the operation of the Jamaica guaranteed banana purchase scheme over the period from now until the expiry of the present guarantee at the end of 1946. If such surplus is realised, its disposal will be considered at the time in the light of all the circumstances including the very substantial deficits incurred up to date in the operation of this purchase scheme.

Mr. Riley: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman no estimate of the damage done by the hurricane, and is the one institution which will make a profit likely to be His Majesty's Government?

Colonel Stanley: That is grossly unfair. His Majesty's Government, as the result of the appeal for help from Jamaica, are going to propose to the House the provision of a very large sum of money, and it is a great mistake to denigrate the generosity with which the taxpayer of this country is asked to behave.

SOUTHERN AND NORTHERN RHODESIA AND NYASALAND

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether His Majesty's Government can make any statement as to the future relations between Southern Rhodesia and Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.

Captain P. Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is in a position to make a statement with regard to constitutional development in Northern Rhodesia.

Colonel Stanley: As the answers to these Questions raise matters of importance and are necessarily of some length, I will, with the permission of Mr. Speaker and that of the House and of the hon. Members concerned, reply to them at the end of Question time.

Later—

Colonel Stanley: His Majesty's Government have recently had under further consideration the question of the relations between Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In considering this question, they have fully taken into account the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1938–39, and they


have also taken the opportunity to discuss the present situation in the three Territories with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland during their recent visits to this country. It is recognised that there should be the closest possible co-ordination of the policy and action of the Governments of the three Territories in all matters of common interest and it has been agreed with them that concrete and positive steps should be taken to ensure that this co-ordination is effective and comprehensive. With this end in view, it is proposed that a Standing Central African Council covering the three Territories should be established on a permanent basis and that a permanent Inter-Territorial Secretariat should be set up. The Council will be consultative in character and its general function will be to promote the closest contact and cooperation between the three Governments and their administrative and technical services. Its precise functions and constitution will be matters for consultation between the three Governments, but it is contemplated that it should deal with communications, economic relations, industrial development; research, labour, education, agricultural, veterinary and medical matters, currency and such other matters as may be agreed between the three Governments. It is contemplated also that permanent standing committees of the Council should be set up to deal with communications, industrial development, research and such other matters as may be agreed upon and that, in addition, ad hoc conferences should be held under the ægis of the Council to deal with technical and special subjects. It is intended that the leading unofficials in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland should be closely associated with the work of the Council and its committees.
His Majesty's Government realise that the Southern Rhodesia Government still adhere to their view that the three Territories should be amalgamated. While, however, His Majesty's Government have, after careful consideration, come to the conclusion that the amalgamation of the Territories under existing circumstances cannot be regarded as practicable, they are confident that the present scheme will, by ensuring a closer contact and co-operation, make an important contribution to the future pros-

perity of the two Rhodesias and Nyasaland.
I am also glad to have this opportunity of making a statement on constitutional development in Northern Rhodesia. I discussed the reform of the Northern Rhodesia constitution with the Governor during his recent visit to this country and as a result it has now been decided by His Majesty's Government that the time has come to increase the unofficial membership of the Legislative Council. The number of nominated unofficial members will accordingly be increased from one to five, three of whom will represent the interests of the African community. The Council will then consist in addition to the Governor as President, of nine official members, eight elected unofficial members and five nominated unofficial members. The Governor will be provided under the constitution with the necessary reserve powers. It is intended that African interests in the Legislative Council should he represented by Africans as soon as a suitable basis of representation can be built up. Provincial African Councils have recently been established in the Territory, and, when these have had sufficient experience, an African Central Council will be set up consisting of delegates from the Provincial Councils. It is the intention that in due course African members from this Central Council should sit on the Legislative Council to represent African interests. In the meantime African interests will be represented by members directly nominated by the Governor. For the present these members will be Europeans; but, on the occurrence of a vacancy or vacancies at any time during the interim period before the representatives of African interests can be appointed from the African Central Council, it will be open to the Governor to select for nomination one or more Africans, if he considers that African interests would benefit from such a course.

Mr. Creech Jones: In thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that very valuable statement, may I ask him whether, with regard to the first part of the answer to Question 42, we are to assume that the independence and integrity of the three separate territories will remain; and further, whether the Government's position in regard to amalgamation remains unchanged, and that consideration of the problem is postponed


until there are further changes in native policy in the respective territories?

Colonel Stanley: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Captain P. Macdonald: These constitutional changes that have been announced to-day and which have been recently announced, are of great importance, and in view of the fact this House is responsible for the administration of these Colonies, shall we have an opportunity of discussing these matters before final ratification takes place? It is important that the House should know to what they are committed before the final settlement is made.

Colonel Stanley: The change in the constitution in Rhodesia, as in the Gold Coast, has to be effected by means of an Order in Council. These Orders in Council are laid before both Houses in the normal course, and the usual means can be found to discuss them.

Earl Winterton: In view of the great importance of this matter to the inhabitants of Northern Rhodesia, can my right hon. and gallant Friend make it clear—I think it was clear from the reply he gave to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones)—that this in no way prejudices the eventual possible amalgamation of Northern and Southern Rhodesia after the war, in view of public opinion on the subject in Northern Rhodesia? Does it leave the position unchanged?

Colonel Stanley: That is the case. We have decided that, under existing conditions, amalgamation is not practicable; but I would not like it to be thought that existing conditions merely meant the continuance of the war.

Earl Winterton: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend make it quite clear that this does not mean that His Majesty's Government exclude for all time the idea of amalgamation of the African territories?

Colonel Stanley: Certainly. I have said that it is not considered practicable under existing circumstances, and I have given the House some idea of what those circumstances are.

Mr. John Dugdale: With reference to the proposed Central Council, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman used the phrase that "unofficial help will be

sought." Will this unofficial help be African help?

Colonel Stanley: What I meant was that unofficial members of the Legislature will be associated. Africans will not be associated at the moment, and the Governor will have to represent their interests. No doubt, as soon as Africans emerge who are capable of really contributing to discussions of this kind, they will be associated.

Sir Edward Grigg: Will the Orders in Council, to which my right hon. and gallant Friend referred, be made in the course of the present Session?

Colonel Stanley: I could not answer off-hand, but I should be doubtful if that would be so.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Have the Government of the Union of South Africa been kept informed of these proposals, and have they expressed approval?

Colonel Stanley: This is the responsibility of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Astor: Will the proposed Council have a full-time permanent chairman and secretariat?

Colonel Stanley: It will have a permanent secretariat, and it will have a permanent chairman, but not a full-time one. Probably he will be the Governor of Southern Rhodesia.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)

Captain Cobb: asked the Prime Minister which Minister of the Crown is responsible for the actions of regional commissioners.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Regional commissioners are officers of the Crown appointed by Royal Warrant on the recommendation of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and Minister of Home Security. Most of their functions relate to matters which concern my right hon. Friend, and questions would ordinarily be answered by him.

Captain Cobb: Are the orders made from time to time by these regional commissioners issued on their sole responsibility, or must they be approved by some Minister of the Crown?

Mr. Attlee: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put that question on the Paper.

ALLIED FORCES (ITALIAN UNITS)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Prime Minister what is the strength of the Italian forces in each of the three services now fighting for the United Nations.

Mr. Attlee: I regret that it would not be in the public interest to disclose this information.

Viscount Hinehingbrooke: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously contend that at this stage of the war it is not in the public interest to disclose—

Mr. Speaker: That sounds like an argument. It is not a question asking for information.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

SERVICE PERSONNEL (PARLIA MENTARY CANDIDATES)

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that a general election cannot be long delayed and of the feeling throughout the country that the next Parliament should be largely composed of younger men and more especially of those who have seen active service in this war, he will direct that those of the latter category who have been already adopted by constituencies, but are now serving abroad, should be now returned for duties in this country so as to give them equal opportunity with civilians and with Service men stationed at home of placing their views personally before their constituents at meetings or other occasions.

Mr. Attlee: The position is as stated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, in reply, to a Question addressed to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford (Mr. Groves) on the 6th June last.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: In view of our experience and that of foreign nations, will the right hon. Gentleman see

that these Service men are given every facility to place their views before the electorate?

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any information as to various persons who are going round the Services and suggesting to future candidates that their expenses will be paid in certain conditions? Who are these persons and where does the money come from?

Mr. Attlee: I have no knowledge of that and the question should be addressed to the responsible Ministers.

Mr. John Dugdale: Will my right hon. Friend facilitate the return to this country of personnel from the three Services, who have been invited to attend selection committees with a view to being adopted as candidates?

Mr. Attlee: If my hon. Friend reads the reply to which I have referred, he will see that the point is covered.

Mr. Buchanan: Do we understand that the Government will not interfere directly or indirectly with the free choice of candidates for election to the House?

Mr. Attlee: That hardly arises.

BRITISH EMPIRE CASUALTIES, WESTERN EUROPE

Mr. Keeling: asked the Prime Minister whether he can state the casualties in Western Europe of the armies and air forces, respectively, of the British Empire from D-Day until the despatch of airborne forces to Arnhem.

Mr. Attlee: The precise figures asked for by the hon. Member are not available, but the House may like to have the following information. From the opening of the campaign until the end of August the casualties sustained by the Imperial forces engaged totalled 103,842, of whom 20,795 were killed, 63,193 wounded and 19,854 missing or taken prisoner. These figures include casualties to Dominion forces and to other overseas personnel serving in the United Kingdom forces. The Air Force casualties are as reported from the 1st April, 1944, the rest from 6th June.

CIVIL AVIATION CONFERENCE (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Dr. Little: asked the Prime Minister whether a representative from Northern Ireland will be included in the British Delegation to the International Civil Aviation Conference, to be held in the U.S.A. on 1st November, in order that the claims and suitability of Ulster for a civil airport may be placed before the Conference.

Mr. Attlee: No, Sir. Civil Aviation is a reserved matter and it would not be appropriate for a representative of the Government of Northern Ireland to attend the International Conference. I can, however, assure my hon Friend that adequate steps will be taken to safeguard the interests of Northern Ireland.

Dr. Little: Is it not intended that there should be a representative of Northern Ireland—

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid this sounds like an argument and not a question.

WASTE PAPER COLLECTION

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Minister of Production what effect recent increases of paper supplies for publishing purposes will have on reserve stocks; and whether the need for waste-paper collections remains urgent.

The Minister of Production (Mr. Lyttelton): While the recent increases in paper supplies for publishing purposes will not endanger our stocks, it is nevertheless essential that waste paper should continue to be collected to the greatest possible extent in order to maintain supplies of paper at their present level.

Mr. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman take some steps to impress on the public and a large number of authorities the need for increasing the collection of waste paper? The public appear to think that there is no longer any necessity.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the matter and we will take steps to see that the answer I have given is widely known.

Mr. Graham White: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of increased supplies of paper from pre-war sources?

Mr. Lyttelton: That is another question.

Mr. Buchanan: Will the right hon. Gentleman go through the postal bags of Members of Parliament and see the great number of unnecessary communications?

FOOD SUPPLIES

Milk (Service Personnel on Leave)

Sir Douglas Hacking: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that men and women in the Services, while on leave, cannot get any milk; and if, in view of the hardship this entails, especially in small families, he will make some arrangement for these men and women to draw a milk ration.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): Milk retailers are provided with milk with which to meet the needs of men and women on leave from the Services and all other holders of temporary ration cards. If my right hon. Friend will give me particulars of any cases where these arrangements have not worked I will have them looked into.

Mr. McKinlay: Will the Minister state under what regulation a retailer can be compelled to supply a rationed commodity on a temporary card?

Colonel Llewellin: There is no regulation compelling him to do it, but the milk is there, the ration card and the money are presented, and the retailers are, usually, very willing to make a sale.

British Restaurants

Mr. Graham White: asked the Ministry of Food to what extent his policy with regard to British Restaurants has been changed; and if he is now prepared to subsidise local restaurants for which there is no adequate local need and which the local authorities cannot effectively run.

Colonel Llewellin: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "It has not been changed," and to the second "No, Sir."

Mr. White: Has there not been a change, if Press reports are correct, with regard to certain British Restaurants in Yorkshire?

Colonel Llewellin: If my hon. Friend will let me know the particular restaurants to which he refers, I will look into it, but there has been no change in policy.

Mr. Reakes: Is it not a fact that 400 British Restaurants have been closed, and, if that is so, is there any reason for it, seeing that the war is still on and the food situation is the same for war workers?

Colonel Llewellin: I am not certain of the numbers that have been closed, but they have been closed where the public support for them has not been adequate to justify further expense.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: Is it not a fact that a considerable number could be closed with great advantage to the tax-payers?

Sugar (Bulk Purchase)

Lady Apsley: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements have been made with overseas Colonies or foreign countries for the bulk purchase of sugar in the years immediately following the war.

Colonel Llewellin: We have arranged to purchase the whole exportable surplus of sugar from Australia, South Africa, British West Indies, British Guiana, the East African Territories, Fiji and Mauritius, as well as from San Domingo and Haiti up to the end of 1946.

Lady Apsley: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the general satisfaction it will give?

Ice Cream Manufacture (Northern Ireland)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the strong representations made to him by the Northern Ireland Ice Cream Association, he will reconsider his decision and allow the manufacture of ice cream to be resumed in Northern Ireland in the near future.

Colonel Llewellin: Not yet, Sir.

Dr. Little: Would my right hon. and gallant Friend consider whether the time has not come to abolish harmful substitutes and allow genuine ice cream to be manufactured?

Colonel Llewellin: The Order was made in order to save labour and transport, and as soon as I can see my way to abolish it, I intend to do so.

Mr. A. Edwards: Have not the conditions which led to the original decision now entirely changed?

Colonel Llewellin: The original decision was made long before I went to the Ministry of Food.

Extra Christmas Fare

Mr. Francis Beattie: asked the Minister of Food whether he can find it possible to make available any additional supplies of food for enjoyment by the British public at Christmas time.

Colonel Llewellin: Yes, Sir, this will be the sixth Christmas since the beginning of the war and the people of this country are entitled to such extras as the supply position allows. At Christmas we think first of the children and I have decided that everyone between the ages of six months and 18 years shall be entitled to an extra ration of a half-pound of sweets during the ration period commencing on 10th December. Secondly, during the same ration period for every person with a ration book there will be an additional half-pound of margarine and half-pound of sugar. These, plus the extra dried fruits we are putting on the market, will, I hope, help them to make better Christmas cakes and puddings and things of that sort.
I hope that there will be a few more turkeys this year than last, and we are making similar arrangements for distribution to those made last year. I have also decided to increase the meat ration from 1s. 2d. to 1s. 10d. for the week preceding Christmas Day. We have already started a distribution of oranges and in addition I am making a considerable quantity of dates available, which will be obtainable on points at the small expenditure of one point per ¼ lb. packet.
Having started with the children I come finally to the old people. I am glad that my supply of tea is now sufficient to increase the ration for everyone of 70 years of age and upwards by 1 oz. of tea a week. This will not be limited to Christmas but will start on 10th December and will, I hope, continue throughout the whole of 1945.

Mr. Beattie: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend give some further particulars regarding the extra dried fruits to which he referred?

Colonel Llewellin: There will be 22,000 tons of sultanas, 4,000 tons of raisins and 9,000 tons of dates. The dates amount to 80,000,000 small packets.

Miss Rathbone: Can we be assured that the very welcome extra supplies will not, in any way, diminish the amount of food available to be sent to the liberated countries of Europe which have suffered so much?

Colonel Llewellin: I am one of those who take the view that the people of this country, who have been on as strict rationing as anybody during these years of war, are entitled to something more.

Captain Macdonald: While welcoming the addition to the rations, may I ask my right hon. and gallant Friend to consider increasing the amount of beer and spirits available?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend, in his newfound rôle of Father Christmas, see that his cargo includes toys; and will he press the President of the Board of Trade to help in that direction?

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Used Machine Tool Industry (Scotland)

Major Lloyd: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of complaints from members of the used machine tool industry in Scotland over the difficulties and delays in securing permits to obtain used machine tools, which are often in urgent demand; and whether anything is being done to improve the present position, which is causing dissatisfaction to those concerned.

The Minister of Supply (Sir Andrew Duncan): I am not aware of any general difficulties in the issue of licences. If my hon. and gallant Friend will kindly give me details of any particular cases he has in mind I shall be glad to look into them.

Major Lloyd: Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is the greatest indignation among members of the used machine tool industry in Scotland, and

that his reply will cause great surprise? Will he give me an assurance that an impartial investigation will be made by the Ministry of Supply into the many complaints against the Machine Tool Control in Scotland?

Sir A. Duncan: I am very surprised to hear that there have been these complaints. I have not heard of any except in one case, which is a special case on its own, and if the hon. and gallant Member has any further cases I shall be glad to have them.

Mr. Austin Hopkinson: Will direct application from users be accepted, or have they to apply to the merchants?

Sir A. Duncan: That is another question, and I shall look into it.

Controls and Restrictions (Removal)

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Minister of Supply whether his plans for removing unnecessary controls and restrictions after the cessation of hostilities in Europe are yet complete; and whether he can make any interim statement.

Sir A. Duncan: Plans are under consideration for relaxing controls and restrictions wherever practicable as soon as circumstances permit.

Sir L. Lyle: Is it not a fact that officialdom and bureaucracy are loath to give up controls which they now have over nearly every aspect of our lives?

Bathtubs

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Supply whether his Department has made an estimate of the total number of bathtubs required in the first year after the passing of the Housing (Temporary Accommodation) Bill, for installation in permanent, emergency and repaired houses; and how long will it take to reconvert the average plant formerly making bathtubs which has been diverted to the manufacture of munitions during the war.

Sir A. Duncan: My Noble Friend the Minister of Works has furnished me with a provisional estimate of the number of baths required. It is estimated that the plants formerly making baths can be reconverted within three months.

Mr. Bossom: Would my right hon. Friend answer my Question, whether he has an estimate of the total number that will be required?

Sir A. Duncan: I have said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has provided me with an estimate.

Mr. Bossom: Will my right hon. Friend furnish it to the House?

Sir A. Duncan: That is a question which should be put to the Minister of Works.

Sir Irving Albery: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that he will be able to supply the number of baths required?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir; I said in reply to a Question last week, that we were taking steps to ensure that the necessary labour and capacity would be available.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in this industry there is a marked shortage of high skilled labouru, and will he see that skilled labour is returned to the industry?

Sir A. Duncan: Yes, Sir. There is a marked shortage of high skilled labour. The capacity is there and at the moment has not been manned, and we are taking active steps with the Ministry of Labour to meet the position.

MAURITIUS (JEWISH REFUGEES)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, especially having regard to the effect on their health of the climate and incidence of malaria in their present position, the Jewish refugees now interned in Mauritius can be removed to Palestine, or, failing that, to more salubrious place than Mauritius.

Colonel Stanley: I regret that in present circumstances it is not possible to remove these refugees from Mauritius. I am satisfied that the Government of Mauritius is doing everything possible for their comfort and welfare and that the anti-malarial measures taken since their arrival have steadily reduced the incidence of the disease. Generally their health is good.

Mr. Harvey: Will the Minister bear in mind that these are all people who have escaped from murder in most terrible circumstances, and that they have special claims for consideration as soon as shipping facilities permit?

Colonel Stanley: I might point out, of course, that they are in safety.

Mr. Sorensen: Have not some, as a matter of fact, been transferred to other areas?

Colonel Stanley: A few have gone.

Mr. Riley: Will the Minister bear in mind that about 1,400 of these refugees have been there for about four years?

Mr. Hammersley: My right hon. and gallant Friend said that these people were there in safety. Is it not a fact that they have been virtually interned for four years, without being charged with any offence of any character? Ought we not to do our utmost to see that these people are sent to a more suitable place?

NORTH AFRICA (SAILINGS IN BALLAST)

Major Peto: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport to what extent ships are still sailing from North Africa to England without cargoes.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Noel-Baker): Save in certain exceptional cases, no vessel now returns from the Mediterranean to the United Kingdom in ballast. It may occasionally happen, however, that, for operational reasons, this must be done.

WAR TRANSPORT (CONTROLS AND RESTRICTIONS)

Major Peto: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he has compiled a list of Orders and restrictions which could now safely be removed and so benefit public liberties.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in answer to a Question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) on 3rd October, the question of revoking Orders and Regulations made under Emergency Powers is kept under constant review. A substantial number of the Orders made by my Noble Friend have already been revoked, and others will be revoked as soon as the reasons for which they were made no longer hold good.

Major Peto: Does the Minister realise with what great pleasure that answer will be received all over the country?

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether his plans for removing unnecessary controls and restrictions after the cessation of hostilities in Europe are yet complete; and whether he can make any interim statement.

Mr. Noel-Baker: My Noble Friend will be guided by the general policy of the Government in removing restrictions or controls when the public interest no longer requires that they should be maintained.

Sir L. Lyle: Will the Minister kindly make it known to his staff, and to everybody else he can, that lip-service to freedom is not enough?

Mr. Noel-Baker: My staff are always working at this subject, but I would like to assure my hon. Friend that while there is a shortage of labour, equipment and vehicles, many of the so-called restrictions mean, in fact, a much better service and a much more fairly distributed service.

MERCHANT NAVY (BOOKLETS)

Sir A. Knox: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport the cause of the delay in the publication of the booklets on the Merchant Navy which were in preparation in February, 1943, and one of which was finished in February, 1944.

Mr. Noel-Baker: As a result of editorial and publishing difficulties, galley proofs were not received until May. It was then decided to delay publication, in order that chapters on the operations in Normandy might be added. I hope that the book on ocean-going vessels will be published in December, and that on coasters a little later.

Sir A. Knox: Is this a definite promise? I have asked this Question three times.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I know, and I hope this is quite definite. I hope this delay will have served the purpose of making the books more complete and more adequate to the great subject with which they have to deal.

RAILWAY TRAINS (HEATING)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport why, in view of the fact that the amount of extra coal consumed would be infinitesimal, long distance passenger trains are not heated, not even those travelling in the colder parts of the country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Long distance night trains and troop trains have been heated since 25th September. Other trains will be heated as from Monday next.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it takes only 3 lbs. extra of coal to heat a passenger train running one mile; and will he call a halt in the punitive propensities of his Department against the travelling public?

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is not that. We have to try to help the Minister of Fuel and Power as much as we can.

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

Regional Organisation

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Information if he can state when he hopes to be able to reduce the regional organisation of his Ministry.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Brendan Bracken): No, Sir.

Mr. Graham White: Will the Minister do his best to keep this matter under review?

Mr. Bracken: Yes, Sir, I have done and am doing my best to try to work out a scheme that will help the harassed taxpayer.

Controls and Restrictions

Sir L. Lyle: asked the Minister of Information whether his plans for removing unnecessary controls and restrictions after the cessation of hostilities in Europe are yet complete; and whether he can make any interim statement.

Mr. Bracken: The only control or restriction for which I am responsible is the operation of the censorship. There is no doubt that the cessation of hostilities in Europe will thin the tribe of censors.

Sir L. Lyle: Could we not discontinue the local censorship of letters, for instance, in what were the banned areas?

Mr. Bracken: I hope that when the war is over the postal censorship will disappear out of the banned areas and all areas.

Postal Censorship (Northern Ireland)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Minister of Information why, as the security reason for censorship is to prevent leakage of information across the Eire border, there is censorship of mail from Northern Ireland to Great Britain; and whether he will discontinue this procedure as it fulfils no useful purpose.

Mr. Bracken: Some censorship examination of the mail from Northern Ireland to Great Britain is necessary in order to detect whether there has been any leakage of information to Eire, and to trace any channel of communication which may have been used.

Sir R. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend really think that that is necessary? If he is putting a censorship upon information going from one part of the United Kingdom to another part of the United Kingdom why does he not put it on the whole of the United Kingdom internal mail?

Mr. Bracken: I can assure my hon. Friend that the censorship is based only upon security reasons, and no other. I should be very glad to get rid of it, but the security authorities insist that it must be carried out.

Sir R. Ross: In view of the reply that security is the only reason for preventing information leaking into Eire, is it not clear that the censorship of mails from Northern Ireland to Great Britain does not affect that in the slightest degree?

Mr. Bracken: There does not seem to be much co-ordination among the Members from Northern Ireland, as there is an hon. Member on the other side who is always putting down Questions to ask me to take much stronger measures to stiffen up the censorship in relation to Eire.

Sir R. Ross: We still want that done.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

National Parks

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether he has received the Report of the Com-

mittee on National Parks; and if he can state the policy of the Government on the subject.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I am not sure what Committee the hon. Member has in mind; but my right hon. Friend hopes soon to publish a Report on the subject of National Parks, which has been prepared for him by his Department.

Housing Estates (Agricultural Land)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what action his Department proposes to take to prevent local planning authorities permitting the construction of housing estates by speculative builders on good agricultural land.

Mr. H. Strauss: I would refer my hon. Friend to a circular dated 3rd November, 1943, of which I am sending him a copy, in which my right hon. Friend gave advice to local authorities on the importance of preventing the unnecessary diversion of good agricultural land to other purposes and on the need for consulting the rural land utilisation officers of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Bossom: Is my hon. Friend indicating that there is only advisory power and not compulsory power for these authorities to use agricultural land to the full?

Mr. Strauss: My right hon. Friend has certain powers of control under planning legislation of 1932 and 1913, but perhaps my hon. Friend would like to consult the circular which I have mentioned.

BRITISH ARMY

Italian Partisans and Pioneer Units

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) whether he will give some estimate of the value to our rearward services in Italy of the help rendered by Italian pioneer units or labour battalions;
(2) what is the approximate strength of Italian partisan forces in northern Italy; what areas they hold; and how many German divisions are contained by their operations.

The Secretary of State for War (Sir James Grigg): A large number of Italian


partisans are fighting the enemy very gallantly. A certain amount of arms has been delivered to them. We are also receiving help from Italian Pioneer and Labour units which is of considerable value to our rearward services. It would not, however, be in the public interest to disclose further details.

West Indian Troops (Training in United States)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War why, in view of colour bar prejudice, it was necessary for the West Indian 1st Caribbean regiment to be sent to the Southern United States for further training; what particular instructions and warnings were given to the troops; and whether he will arrange that no further West Indian troops will be sent to areas in the U.S.A. where colour discrimination is rife.

Sir J. Grigg: The area chosen for the final training and concentration of this unit has a climate which enabled training to be carried out with the least interruptions. There was suitable accommodation available and the port from which the unit sailed for overseas was near by. I am not aware that any special instructions were issued to the troops in question or that any difficulties arose while they were in the United States. The choice of a suitable area in which troops can train depends on the factors I have mentioned and I regret that I cannot undertake that they will not be sent to any specific areas. I should like to take this opportunity to say that we are greatly indebted to the United States Army authorities for the assistance they gave in training these troops.

Mr. Sorensen: Does not the Minister appreciate that the coloured troops in the West Indies do not suffer because of the colour bar whereas in the Southern States they might? Would it not be much better to arrange for them to go somewhere else?

Sir J. Grigg: I understand that my right hon. and gallant Friend the Colonial Secretary is perfectly satisfied with the arrangements made, and whatever apprehensions the hon. Member may have had, no such trouble arose.

Mr. Sorensen: I have had indication of it.

ARGENTINA (AXIS TRANSACTIONS)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare whether his attention has been drawn to the Argentine ban on Axis transactions, whereby all transactions in money or property between Argentina and the Axis countries, or countries dominated by Germany or Japan, are totally prohibited; and whether he is in a position, to give any further information on the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Economic Warfare (Mr. Dingle Foot): As the answer is a long one I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir F. Sanderson: Does not my hon. Friend consider the Argentine Government's statement very timely and welcome—which may result in far reaching economic advantages and tend to cement the good relationship which has existed between our countries for over one hundred and fifty years?
Following is the answer:
Yes, Sir. The Argentine Government's decree No. 1875/44 of the 27th January, 1944, prohibited as from that date all commercial and financial intercourse with Germany and Japan, and with territories dominated by those nations.
With regard to the hon. Member's request for further information, I understand that the Argentine Central Bank's Circulars Nos. 349 and 351 of 27th January and 9th February gave instructions to Banks, Exchange Brokers and other Institutions dealing in exchange, in amplification of the Decree. The main provisions of these circulars were that transfers of funds and securities of all kinds to and from abroad in national or foreign currencies in favour of, for account of, or to the order of persons or firms domiciled in Germany, Japan and in territories dominated by them, were prohibited except with the express authorisation in each case of the Central Bank; moreover, credits, deposits, debits or withdrawals to or from cash or security accounts of all kinds in national or foreign currencies already opened or to be opened in the name of such persons or firms were also prohibited without like authorisation; finally, the Central Bank had also to give its express authorisation


to all other operations in which such persons or firms had a direct or indirect interest.
In a further circular the Central Bank have explained that the decree of 27th January last regarding the suspension of financial and commercial operations with Germany, Japan and controlled territories 'applies to the transfer of all kinds of assets in Argentina belonging to persons and firms resident in above territories and also to all direct or indirect operations on their account.

COAL DUMP FIRE, WILLENHALL

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement with regard to the burning of slack from outcrop coal at Short Heath, Willenhall, Staffordshire; where the responsibility lies; and if he will cause an inquiry to be conducted if necessary.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Toni Smith): My right hon. Friend has already had an inquiry made into this incident. The statements which have appeared in the Press regarding the loss of coal by fire at Hilton Main Colliery Dump have been very much exaggerated. The coal consists of screenings normally flowing to industrial markets. The responsibility for the safety of the stock rests in the first instance with the colliery company but it must be recognised that with many coals there are serious difficulties in controlling spontaneous combustion. As soon as the Regional Controller was notified remedial measures were put in hand. The fire has now been quenched.

Mr. Mander: Is my hon. Friend aware that there was considerable uncertainty locally as to the relative responsibility of the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Works; and will he take steps to see that that is changed in the future?

Mr. Smith: As far as it is possible.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it not the case that fire can only take place if there is gross negligence, and that before a fire is seen it must have been heating for weeks? If my hon. Friend is in any difficulty in this matter I will get him half a dozen men, and if he will allow them to make a dump of 500,000 tons of coal I can assure him that there will be no fire.

Mr. Mander: Who is responsible for the negligence?

Mr. Smith: Responsibility in the first place rests on the colliery company.

GIFT PARCELS (PURCHASE TAX)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been drawn to the concern felt by the troops in the Middle East at the payment of Purchase Tax on presents sent by them to their relatives at home while better paid American and Dominion troops incur no such tax liability; and will he place British troops in this respect in the same position as the men from America and the Dominions who are fighting by their side.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr.Assheton): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for York (Captain Lord Irwin) on 10th October. It would not be accurate to say that there are no restrictions on parcels sent home by United States and Dominion Forces. The practice varies a good deal; no doubt each country gives what it feels is practicable, having regard inter alia to the extent and nature of its taxes.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the U.S. Forces and Dominion troops are in a more favourable position in this matter than our own, and that these restrictions are bitterly resented by the men overseas? Is it really worth while to maintain them in view of the small amount of money involved?

Mr. Assheton: My hon. Friend will appreciate that unfortunately it would be impossible to control imports into this country at all without some restrictions.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is regarded as a major grievance by the troops concerned, and can he not go further to meet that legitimate grievance?

Mr. Assheton: I am fully aware of that, and the Chancellor has done what he can, but it is quite impossible to give the full concession asked for. I hope that the Question and answer to-day will help a little to remove the difficulty.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the amount received in Purchase Tax, for the last recorded date, on presents sent by troops overseas to their relatives in this country.

Mr. Assheton: I regret that the information asked for is not available.

Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that the amount received is infinitesimal compared with the revenue the Chancellor receives, and will he not at least consult the Secretary of State for War in view of the feeling in the Army on the matter, to see whether it is worth while?

Mr. Assheton: I tried to make it clear, in answer to a previous Question, that it was not the amount involved which was the principal difficulty, but the control of imports to this country.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he has any statement to make about the course of Business for the remainder of the week?

Mr. Attlee: The Government are most anxious to conclude the Town and Country Planning Bill this week, so that it may be sent to another place. We hope that this may prove possible, with the co-operation of hon. Members in all quarters of the House. We propose, however, to give additional time and to set apart Friday of this week for the consideration of the concluding stages of the Bill. We can postpone all the Business announced for Friday except the Committee stage of the Supplementary Vote of Credit for War Expenditure. In order that the whole of Friday's Sitting may be available for the Town and Country Planning Bill, I hope that the House will be agreeable to give us the Committee stage of the Vote of Credit formally, on the understanding that an opportunity will be given for debate on the Report stage. I hope that this arrangement will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Greenwood: This raises three questions. How far is it proposed to go to-day, when will the Clauses reach the Committee for Second Reading; and what stage is it proposed to begin on Friday? I would enter this caveat,

that, while I, personally, would do everything I could to help the House dispose of this Bill, and send it to another place, the Government must bear in mind the difficulties that there may be in finishing on Friday.

Mr. Attlee: The proposal is that we shall take only the Report stage to-day, and the Re-committal to-morrow. We hope that to-morrow and Friday we shall be able to dispose of the Clauses. That may sound too hopeful, but I know that hon. Members want to get on with this Bill, in view of its importance.

Mr. Greenwood: Does not my right hon. Friend think that the whole of today and to-morrow will have to be given to the Second Reading of the Clauses?

Mr. Attlee: It might be possible on the Second Reading to have a general Debate, which would clear up many matters. Of course, the House must have enough time to dispose of this important subject. I am only expressing the hope that we may get it. If not, we shall have to give more time.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: These Clauses, which are very complicated indeed, have not yet come before us. How will it be possible to take them in Committee tomorrow?

Mr. Attlee: I explained that yesterday. We hope to circulate the other Clauses—which are being laid to-day—in the course of this afternoon. But those Clauses deal with separate matters from those dealt with in Clauses 45 and 46. I do not think that the House would be seriously hampered in beginning a discussion on the Clauses we have already got.

Sir Irving Albery: Will the Rule be suspended to-morrow and Friday?

Mr. Attlee: I should hope not on Friday, but it will be on Thursday.

Commander Galbraith: In view of the very great complexity of these matters and the fact that we have Clauses still to come before us, would the right hon. Gentleman not seriously consider putting off this discussion to next week?

Mr. Attlee: I should have thought that the general principle in these Clauses


could be very well debated on Second Reading. The details are complex, but I really think that we could make progress; and I ask Members to try to make progress.

Sir John Mellor: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that it is not proposed to go further than the Second Reading of the new Clauses tomorrow; because it is quite impossible for hon. Members, who will be in the Chamber the whole day, to draft Amendments and table them to-day, so that they can be on the Paper to-morrow?

Mr. Attlee: We shall have to see how we go. It is really a matter for the Chairman.

Mr. Bowles: Is it not clear that Conservative Members have made up their minds to table Amendments? It is running through all their questions.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Will the right hon. Gentleman have regard to his statement of last Friday, that he would see that the House had proper time to conside these Amendments, which arc very technical and far-reaching?

Mr. Attlee: I have reiterated that the House should have adequate time. The fact that we are beginning on Thursday does not mean that we shall not have adequate time—in fact, a postponement might mean a curtailment of the time.

Major Lloyd: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of humble backbenchers, like myself, feel resentful at being unduly rushed, to suit the convenience of the Government; and that that feeling may become manifest at a later stage?

Mr. Attlee: I think Members of the House thought it a good idea that we should discuss general principles on the Second Reading of the Clauses. I do not think it is an undue rushing to have such a Debate on the general principles, which were announced by me in the House some time ago. That is a different matter from the technical question of Amendments. I should have thought that the general principles could very well be discussed on the Second Reading.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS

That they have agreed to,—

Housing (Scotland) Bill, without Amendment;

That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confer on the High Court in England and the Court of Session in Scotland, and to provide for conferring on the High Court in Northern Ireland, temporary jurisdiction in certain matrimonial causes where the relevant marriage took place on or after the third day of September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine, and to provide for the recognition of certain decrees and orders in matrimonial causes in all British courts."—[Matrimonial Causes (War Marriages) Bill [Lords].]

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES (WAR MARRIAGES) BILL [Lords]

Read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]

Orders of the Day — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL

As amended, considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Designation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

(1) With a view to the guidance of local authorities in the performance of functions under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and this Act in relation to buildings of special architectural or historic interest the Minister may compile lists of such buildings or approve, either with or without modifications, such lists compiled by other persons or bodies of persons.
(2) As soon as may be after any list has been compiled or approved under this section, a copy of so much of the list as relates to the area of any local planning authority (or, if the list is a list approved subject to modifications, a copy of so much of the list as modified as relates to their area) certified by or on behalf of the Minister to be a true copy thereof, shall be deposited with the clerk of the local planning authority and also, where that authority is not the council of a county borough with the clerk of the council of the county in which the area is situated.
(3) Before compiling any list under this section, or approving any list thereunder subject to modifications, the Minister shall consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him appropriate as having special knowledge, of or interest in buildings of architectural and historic interest.—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

12.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Henry Strauss): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The House may remember that during the Committee stage, on 5th October, I accepted in principle, on behalf of the Government, an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) and widely supported in all sections of the Committee. It had also received a large amount of support from amenity and other societies outside. I said that while accepting it in principle, we would consider which was the most appropriate place or places in which to insert this amendment of the law which my hon. Friend had in mind, and this new Clause is designed with that object. It may be convenient to say that the main discussions will, no doubt, occur when we reach the Amendment which has been put down to Clause 17, page 24, line 23, where the House will see the purpose of this new Clause. The new Clause which I am now moving empowers the Minister to compile lists of buildings of special architectural or historic interest and to approve, either with or without modification, such lists compiled by other persons or bodies of persons. The Clause requires the Minister, before compiling or approving any list, to consult such bodies as may appear to him to be appropriate as having expert knowledge; and it also provides for the deposit with the clerk of the planning authority of a copy of any list compiled or approved by the Minister so far as it relates to the area of that particular authority.

12.18 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am sorry that I cannot support my hon. Friend in approving of this Clause as it stands. Under Section 17 of the Act of 1932 before a house which may be of architectural interest alone, because it need not be of historic and architectural interest was made the subject of an Order, the owner was entitled to make representations to the Minister against the issue of an Order. The compilation of the list referred to is very similar to the issuing of an Order, except that it goes further. I gather that the owner of a house which is to appear


in the list will not be entitled to alter it, to extend it, or even to put in an extra bathroom without the approval of the local planning authority, and possibly even of the Minister. Therefore, it is a very much more serious thing. Accordingly I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister, if he wants my support for this Clause, to grant the same facilities as were provided under Section 17 of the Act of 1932, which gave the owner the right to make representations before his house was put in a list.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I think it would be disastrous if the Minister agreed with the last proposal. Any owner who is not willing that his building should be preserved, if it is one of architectural or historic importance, is, it seems to me, unworthy to own it. I welcome this Clause and am very glad the Minister has found it possible to fulfil the promise that he gave. There is only one observation I should like to make. The Clause says the Minister "may". We all know that the present Minister "will", but we are not so certain about future Ministers, and I should be much more happy if instead of "may" we had "shall" or "must". I hope that it will be possible to make such an alteration and to do so without putting in an extra 30 or 40 lines of legalistic jargon.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I also think that the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) are misconceived, or at any rate inappropriate on this Clause. I cannot see any reason why the owner of an historic or architecturally interesting house should be entitled to be heard on the question whether it should be included in a list. This Clause provides merely for its inclusion in a list. Whether there shall be any restrictions on alterations to such a house is surely a matter for discussion when we come to the Amendment which deals with that matter. I welcome this new Clause, as I am sure a great many other hon. Members do. It will be a remarkable achievement to get into this Bill—it will be the first time it has ever been put into an Act of Parliament—a catalogue of buildings which are historically or archi-

tecturally worthy, prima facie, of preservation.
I have, however, three criticisms to make of the Clause. Under Sub-section (1) the Minister apparently compiles or approves a list once for all. There is no express power to revise the list once it has been compiled or approved, and I wonder whether that is really a good arrangement. It will mean either that final lists must be compiled or approved in too much of a hurry, or, alternatively, that local planning authorities will be left for too long without any guidance. I think there ought to be express power to add to or subtract from the list, of course after consultation as provided by Sub-section (3). My next point is that all that Sub-section (2) expressly provides is that the list should be compiled or approved and then deposited with the local authority. Surely publicity is essential here; it is part of our democratic process. We do not want any hole-and-corner business in these matters, especially as there can be no argument about a building once it has been destroyed. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider making provision in another place for publication of these lists by the Stationery Office. To come, finally, to Sub-section (3), I support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). If the Minister "shall" consult in Sub-section (3) surely we ought to say that he "shall" compile in Subsection (1). I hope that all these points will receive consideration before the Bill is introduced in another place.

12.25 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I should like to support the words which have fallen from my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). We must warmly welcome the Clause, and the decision of the Minister to take this step brings us a little into line with the practice which has gone on in France for very many years, under the Ministry of Fine Arts, of classifying buildings and taking careful steps for their preservation. I hope the Minister will look into the point regarding power to revise and alter lists. As I read the Clause I think it is possible that the existence of the plural—"he may compile lists"—does give him that power and that it will not be necessary to alter the wording; but if it should be necessary to do so


in order to secure a right of revision I hope steps will be taken in another place to make the alteration.

12.26 p.m.

Colonel Greenwell: I am one of those who welcome the inclusion of this Clause, but it does not seem to me to go quite far enough. Will the compilation of such lists enable my right hon. Friend to schedule other areas adjacent to the buildings concerned? It is a source of great satisfaction to the whole House, I am sure, to know that historic buildings and monuments will be preserved for all time, but what is to be the position of land adjacent to them on which there may be developments inimical to the aesthetic value of the building itself? We have before us what I would call the standard example of what has happened to two of our most magnificent cathedrals, heirlooms of the race. I can assure my right hon. Friend that Durham Cathedral means something very tangible in the lives of Northcountrymen; it is something about which we feel deeply. I understand that Lincoln Cathedral, also, is likely to be affected. I am sure the House would like an assurance that it will be possible, either under this Clause or other Clauses, to amplify this protection in order to safeguard that aspect of the situation, which does not seem to have been protected.

12.28 p.m.

Sir Edward Grigg: I, too, should like very warmly to welcome this Clause, but like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Colonel Greenwell) I have a real fear that it does not go far enough. To compile a list is to compile it, and the Clause does not require more than that, and I gather that it is not to be a list available to the public. I know of cases where historic buildings have been destroyed by a local authority in spite of much public protest in the locality, and I should very much like to see some safeguard introduced for the protection of buildings which are upon the list. Certainly the list ought to be published; that is a first necessity; and I hope it may also be possible to introduce some safeguard under which the owner of the building and the public in the locality and elsewhere may be able to act effectively, or appeal to the Minister himself

to act, if the future of a building is in any way to be jeopardised.

12.29 p.m.

Mr. Nunn: I should like to inquire whether this Clause will cover land as well as buildings. I am thinking particularly of such lands as, for instance, the Roman Vallums, Druidical circles, and so forth. Perhaps it may be well for my right hon. Friend to consider whether it will be necessary to make mention of such things.

12.30 p.m.

Major Studholme: I would like to say how much I welcome this Clause, and add my support to the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that further arrangements should be made for the publication of these lists, that the Minister should have power to revise them from time to time, and that the word "shall" be substituted for the word "may" in line 3. Although to the legal mind, perhaps, the word "may" sometimes means "shall", to the ordinary individual it means "may." In this case, I should like to be assured that it means "shall" and that there is no doubt about it.

12.31 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I was the only dissentient on the introduction of what is now Clause 40 upon a certain point, and I should like to say, briefly, that I very much welcome the introduction of this Clause in order to facilitate the general intention of Clause 40. I should like to add my plea that the word "may" shall be translated into the word "must". There is no use whatever introducing these provisions, unless they are to be carried out, and it is obvious to my mind that it would be advisable to say so in the Bill so that everyone will know where he stands.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I must confess that, as far as Kingston-upon-Hull is concerned, we have few historical monuments, but there is one which has been miraculously preserved. It is the house in which William Wilberforce first saw the light of day, and it has been preserved by the Corporation. It is in a very narrow street and although all the buildings around it have been razed to the ground by bombing, the house itself


has not a brick out of position. If the Corporation of Hull wishes to do its duty by this historical monument and enlarge the amenities by taking over adjacent land, which is now, perforce, a mass of rubble, I fail to see how this Bill will give an atom of power to preserve and enhance the beauty of this monument in a city which gave to this House a very great man, William Wilberforce. It seems to me that these "mays" and "shalls," and other qualifying phrases, are as disappointing as the whole Bill, because our corporation is going to be hamstrung, hampered, strangled by the action of the Minister.

12.34 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I do not propose to review the historical monuments of my neighbourhood, but I should like to thank the Minister for introducing this excellent Clause and I hope it will be used in the widest possible sense. I share the view that the word "shall" should be put in instead of the word "may," and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to that point.

12.35 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: If I have the leave of the House, I should like to say that I am very grateful for the friendly reception of this Clause in all quarters. Some of the points raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) can, of course, be raised more appropriately at another stage and this applies, similarly, to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg). As regards the point which is raised in many of the speeches, that it is wrong to say that the Minister "may," and that it ought to read, the Minister "shall" I think the wording as it stands is perfectly correct. It is the ordinary wording where a political duty is cast upon a Minister, and it is not either usual, desirable or, indeed, necessary, to put in the word "shall" for the purpose. The fact that the word "shall" appears in another place, means that where the Minister carries out his duty, he "shall" consult. I think "may" is appropriate elsewhere, but the House need entertain no doubt at all that, where such a duty is placed upon the Minister, no Minister who occupies this position would be able to avoid it. The question was raised about publication. Under the provisions of the Local

Government Act of 1933, the lists are open for public inspection. It would be possible by administrative action to secure any desirable publication of them, without any Amendment to the new Clause. The question about the revision of the lists was also raised. I am advised that there would be no difficulty in adding further buildings, but this would not enable buildings already on the list to be removed. I think that is the right and desirable position, but I will certainly have the point further examined, and what has been said taken into consideration.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Newcastle (Mr. Nunn) asked if the Clause covered things which were not buildings at all. I think the answer to that is "No," but that the particular matters which he had in mind could more appropriately be dealt with under the Ancient Monuments Code. I think some of the examples he took may come within this Clause, but not all. I believe I have answered all the various points that have been put, and I hope the House will give the Clause a Second Reading.

Sir E. Grigg: May I point out that I did not say anything about surrounding land?

Mr. Strauss: I am sorry if I did not quite get the point raised by my hon. Friend, but I think that it could be more appropriately dealt with under the later Clauses, whether they are adequate or not. This Clause has no effect whatever except as a preliminary to other Clauses.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Designation of areas of extensive war damage, and of land needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas.)

12.40 p.m.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at end, insert:
(3) Where it appears to the Minister that, having regard to all the circumstances, a local planning authority will, at some future date falling not earlier than two years after the date appointed under Sub-section (1) of this Section, have had sufficient time for the submission of applications for Orders under Sub-section (1) of this Section, he may notify the local planning authority accordingly, and if he so notifies them he shall not be required


to consider any such application made by them after that date:
Provided that before the Minister gives a notification under this Sub-section he shall inform the local planning authority of his intention so to do and afford them an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by him for the purpose.
This Amendment arises out of a discussion which we had in Committee on the maximum period which should be allowed a local authority in which to submit its application for a Clause I order. Fears were expressed that the period of five years was too long, and that this period, though only a maximum, would induce local authorities to be dilatory. I replied to that discussion that, certainly for some of the reconstruction projects which I envisaged in the future, five years would by no means be too long, and might, indeed, be too short. But I promised the Committee that I would look into the case in which a local authority might be dilatory in getting on with a relatively simple proposition of reconstruction. The words I propose to insert here give me the power to truncate the period of five years, if I am satisfied that that would have the effect of expediting a very necessary public work. I hope the House will regard this as a satisfactory issue of the very considerable and serious discussion we had in Committee.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: While I welcome the fact that the Minister has by this Amendment gone some way to meet one of the objections raised in the Committee stage, I would ask him to consider again whether, if this problem were dealt with the other way round, it would not be more satisfactory. Under this Amendment, as I understand it, he can, after two years, come down on a local authority and say "Unless you have your application in within a specific time you will not be able to get an order under Clause 1." I would like him seriously to consider whether the period within which orders could be applied for should not, in every case, be limited to three years, with power to the Minister to extend that period in a particular case if circumstances existed which warranted doing so. If it were done that way, it would be a spur to all local authorities to get on with the job, and that is what we want to see. Most of them, we know,

would be as expeditious as they could, but those who have difficulties which they do not anticipate would know, if that procedure were adopted, that they could get further time in which to apply. It would have the further advantage that people in the surrounding areas would know that their land would not, for an indefinite period, be subject to the threat of compulsory acquisition.

12.43 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I should very much like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) and at the same time to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting, in the spirit, the promise he made on the Committee stage with regard to this question. The two objects are the dealing with dilatory local authorities and the getting rid, as soon as possible, with efficiency, of uncertainties so that people will know whether they are to be interfered with or not. Suppose a person wants to know whether he can really feel secure and get on with his peace-time job and thinks that the local authorities are being dilatory and that they really could have made up their minds sooner. How is such a person to bring that point to the knowledge of the Minister? I want to make sure that this concession is really what it is meant to be—a valuable concession. I want to know how these two evils are to be overcome because, if a Minister cannot know whether an authority is dilatory or not, then I think the point of the hon. Member for Daventry is obviously a good one.

12.45 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: With the leave of the House, I will say a few words about this Amendment. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham Buller), I must answer that I think this way of dealing with the difficulty is the better one. I fear that if we were to legislate for three years, we might be legislating for something unreal, when one envisages the problem ahead. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Penrith. (Lieut.-Colonel Dower), who asks me how a man could acquaint the Minister of his particular difficulties or criticism of the local authority's rate of progress, I have never found that the ordinary British citizen has any difficulty, either directly or through his Member of Parliament, in bringing facts which affect


him to the notice of the responsible Minister. I think there should be no difficulty on that score.
Amendment agreed to.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at end, insert:
(4) Where a local planning authority have taken into consideration for the purposes of this Section the question of the laying out afresh and redevelopment as a whole of a part of their area, or the question of providing in any locality for relocation of population or industry or for replacement of open space, they shall publish in one or more newspapers circulating in their area a notice stating that they are considering the said question and describing in general terms the situation of the part of their area or the locality, and shall not make an application for an order under this Section as respects that part of their area or that locality, as the case may be, before the expiration of two months from the date on which a notice has been published or first published in relation thereto in pursuance of this Sub-section.
In Committee an Amendment was proposed to secure advertisement by the authorities of their intention to apply for a Clause 1 order. I said at the time that I thought the idea was reasonable, but that I did not like the form in which it was couched. My desire, and the desire of the House, will be that local authorities should co-operate at the earliest possible moment with all important interests in their locality, so that their project for reconstruction will bear some close and real resemblance to the needs and wishes of their constituents. From that point of view, it is of importance that the people who are, necessarily, important cooperators in the whole project, should be informed at the earliest possible moment. At the same time, both I and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary made it abundantly clear that, in accepting this intention about advertisements, we could not agree to anything burdensome or onerous on the local authority concerned, or to anything that would invalidate subsequent proceedings under the Bill. These words are drafted to achieve that purpose and I hope the House will agree to them.

12.48 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I hope the Minister will look at this proposed Sub-section again. We have just had a discussion in which it has been urged that local authorities should act promptly, and there has

been a desire that they should be penalised if they do not act promptly. Now we have an Amendment which is going to delay the proceedings. It is now proposed that, not less than two months after submitting an application to the Minister, there should be an advertisement. True, it is to be in general terms, describing the situation of the part of the locality which it is proposed to develop, but this advertisement will be of no use to the citizen unless it informs him whether his particular property is proposed to be dealt with. it is no good talking about general terms, and saying that it is proposed to deal with an area in the borough of Camberwell. People reading the advertisement want to know whether their street or house is to be affected; otherwise, I see no point in the advertisement at all. The local authority must be ready with its plans, and must have made up its mind what particular area it proposes to deal with, before any advertisement can be inserted, but, if it is all ready to proceed, then the obligation to wait two months is an obligation which will have the effect of delaying.
It is idle for my hon. Friends to complain of dilatory procedure of local authorities, when, in fact, they are being encouraged to delay by this obligation, which imposes too much delay on them. I never imagined that the Minister would give two months. Surely, one month is adequate for the purpose, and I want to make my protest against this continual whittling away of the arrangements made in the discussions with the local authorities, all of which were directed to speeding up procedure. Now, one after another, these concessions and improvements in the procedure are being whittled away The Minister has quite properly amended the procedure with regard to public inquiries and cut down the time. He is now giving away a good deal of that time by this obligation to advertise before application is made, because it has to be at least two months. Actually, a good deal of that concession has been thrown away by this Amendment, and I beg of the Minister to look at it again. I cannot hope that, having committed himself to the principle of the Amendment, he will withdraw it, but I ask him to look at it again, with a view to reducing the two months to one.
Amendment agreed to.

12.50 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, leave out "as appears to the authority to be," and insert:
illustrated by such map or maps, as the authority consider.
The point was raised, I think, by the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Hammersley) that, in this case, a map would be necessary, and, indeed, I cannot conceive an application being made without a map, so I accept the spirit of the Amendment.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I raised this point on the Committee stage, and pointed out that the wording of Sub-section (3) already provides that a map should be attached to the application. The Minister has just said that he cannot conceive of maps not having to be attached, and, therefore, has provided in the present Amendment that it should be inserted in Sub-section (4). As I read it, this is already provided for in Sub-section (3).
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: "In page 3, line 15, after "statement," insert "and map or maps illustrating it."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

12.52 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 3, line 16, after "time," insert:
(not being less than twenty-eight days from the first local advertisement).
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the time given for objections to a Clause I order is not less than 28 days after the first date of publication in a local newspaper. We had a discussion on this in Committee, and I gathered that the sense of the Committee was, generally, in favour of this time-limit for objections.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: This is another Amendment for the purpose of slowing up the procedure of the local authorities. I raised what I thought was a substantial point on another Amendment, but I got no reply. I do not know whether the Minister is going to deal with it, but I do not think that 28 days ought to be given to people who have had a preliminary intimation. As it now stands, they have had at least two months since the scheme was about to be put forward, so they should already know whether they are go-

ing to object or not. They now have a local advertisement. Surely they do not need 28 days to make up their minds whether to object or not? Within the two months which they have already had, from the notice that a scheme has been submitted to the Minister, local objectors will, surely, have already made up their minds whether to object, and 14 days would be quite enough. I should not have quarrelled with 28 days in this particular case, but I do quarrel with the cumulative effect of all these delays, which makes the Bill a very different one from that originally submitted to the House. I hope the Minister will cease slowing down the procedure at every stage, and making it difficult for local authorities to carry out the duties imposed upon them.

Major Lloyd: I am quite unconvinced by the argument of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) when he suggested that the object of the Amendments is to increase delay. I suggest that the real object is in order to be fair to those affected by this Clause.

12.55 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I am afraid the estrangement between the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) and myself is getting wider and wider. What we want is as speedy planning as possible, but at the same time we want to remove injustices where they can be avoided, and to take a little time to enable that to be done is surely wise. This is an instance where, I think, hon. Members opposite, who have been called the "pale pinks," feel sure that those who wish to object should have a reasonable time in which to object.

12.56 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I want to say something which I think it is fair should be said on behalf of the Minister. I would agree with my hon. Friend, in general, that it is most undesirable to have anything which would delay the procedure under the Bill. I think everybody, except the opponents of the Bill, would agreed with that, but in the Committee stage, when this Amendment was discussed, the Minister promised to give attention to the points made. He has now put in the Bill something which he believes is fair to all concerned. I think the hon.


Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), although a strong supporter of the Bill, will not suggest that the Minister is a party to anything that looks like delaying tactics.

12.57 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I would like to say a word or two in reply, in case there should be a sense of grievance in the House. I beg the House to believe that this is not a delaying procedure. The Bill is giving substantial time in which objections have to be lodged. Does the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) think that 28 days is an unreasonable time to allow an objector to put in his objections; and, if he were drafting the advertisement himself, for his own council, would be give a shorter period to allow people to object? I think not. It is only to ensure that a proper sequence of events takes place—that the local authority makes up its mind in proper time, applies at the proper time and allows a decent period for objections. and I do not think 28 days is at all excessive. Far from this being a means of delaying the Bill, it will, in my judgment, by increasing the fairness of the proposals, lubricate the whole machinery and make it much more expeditious to work.

Mr. Silkin: They have already had two months.

Mr. Morrison: I hope that local authorities, in forming these projects, will acquaint their constituents of the general nature of their proposals long before two months. I hope they will take them into co-operation long before that. Two months, I think, is the minimum time in which local authorities should receive the views and advice of the many interests involved, and this Amendment, far from slowing up the procedure, will help forward the work.
Amendment agreed to.

12.59 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, leave out "made an application," and insert:
published a notice under Subsection (4) of this Section as a preliminary to an application made by them.
With the permission of the House, perhaps it will be convenient to take this and the next two Amendments together. We have now amended the first Clause

to provide for an advertisement by the local authority of their intention to apply for an Order under Sub-section (1). It is, therefore, desirable to have this Amendment so as to enable owners to register names and addresses for service of future notices as from the date of the preliminary advertisement, and not, as the Bill at present stands, from the date of application for the Order. It is really consequential on the Amendments that we have recently adopted.
Amendment agreed to.
1.0 p.m.
Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 9, leave out "(7) or (9)," and insert "(7), (9) or (11)."
In line 12, leave out "of the application," and insert "under sub-section (4) of this section."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Power to purchase land for redevelopment of areas of extensive war damage, or needed for re-location of population and industries of such areas.)

1.1 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, leave out "five," and insert "two."
As the next Amendment which stands in my name and those of my hon. and gallant Friends—in page 5, line 7, leave out "or under Sub-section (2) of this Section"—is consequential upon this Amendment, perhaps it may also be considered with the present Amendment. It is clear that the purpose of Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 is to deal with matters which are both exceptional and urgent. The Sub-section provides that a local planning authority may, in certain circumstances, be authorised to purchase land compulsorily, notwithstanding that no order under Section 1 of the Act is in force. But that can only be done if the Minister is satisfied, among other things, that the postponement of the acquisition would be prejudicial to the public interest. It must also be that the order authorising purchase should be submitted to the Minister before the expiration of five years from the appointed day.
The purpose of this Amendment is to reduce the period from five years to two years and, having regard to the fact that


this procedure is intended for urgent purposes only, it is an Amendment which my right hon. Friend may be able to accept. When a similar Amendment was moved during the Committee stage the Minister said:
I stated that the intention is to use these exceptional powers in the early years of reconstruction. If the thing is urgent and it is clear that the land ought to be acquired, it is in the early stages that that would be most readily ascertainable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th October, 1944; Vol. 403, C. 1026.]
He went on to explain that he could not there and then accept the Amendment but would have to wait and see how the proposals which he was making in other parts of the Bill for expediting procedure were received by the Committee. He has the procedure which he was seeking virtually intact, and that being so, I hope very much that he will now be able to accept this Amendment so that the Order must be submitted by the planning authority to the Minister within the period of two years from the appointed day.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.

1.4 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I propose to accept the Amendment in accordance with the undertaking I gave in Committee. We have introduced, in this Bill, a very great acceleration of the procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land, and I then said if I emerged from the Committee with that intact, I would accept the Amendment. The point is really that this procedure under Subsection (2) will really, as I apprehend, be of value in the early stages of reconstruction. The first two years will enable the land to be acquired that could be acquired under the procedure, and thereafter, under the accelerated procedure provided by the Bill for the new objects regarding public undertakings and other matters, it should be possible, in subsequent years, for land necessary to be acquired to be acquired and, therefore, I accept the Amendment.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I am astonished. This provision was the basis of all the discussion which took place between the local authorities, and the whole planning proposals were accepted subsequently because it was assumed that we were promised

that for five years this accepted proviso would be available too. Now, without any warning whatever, my right hon. and learned Friend accepts an Amendment which knocks the bottom out of the whole Bill. If I had known that my right hon. and learned Friend was going to accept the Amendment I should unhesitatingly and undoubtedly have carried my opposition to the Bill right through and, in fact, I propose to vote against the Third Reading if he decides to accept this Amendment. He has just knocked the bottom out of the whole thing. I really cannot say anything more than that. The whole thing was on the basis that at least for five years the procedure would be accepted when local authorities would be able to carry out their acquisition under certain terms, and so on, and suddenly the whole thing is taken away, and I am really left speechless.

1.7 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I cannot agree with the complaint of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) with regard to what the Minister said on this Amendment. Surely, it was within his recollection. I cannot agree with him at all that the reduction of the period to two years in any way destroys or affects the main structure of the Bill. Whatever may have been the agreement come to with local authorities, that does not affect the jurisdiction of this House, nor does it justify the House in over-riding the interests of private individuals, and having regard to the accelerated proviso with reference to public inquiries, a strong case has been made out for reducing the unnecessarily long period from five years to two years.

1.8 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would like, with the leave of the House, to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) which, I confess, surprised me greatly. He seemed to proceed upon the basis that Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 was the basis of the whole Bill. It is nothing of the kind. The real reconstruction procedure is the Clause I procedure, under which at any time thereafter the land can be acquired. There is one public inquiry into the whole subject and thereafter when the land is declared under Clause 1, Clause 2 comes in and the land can speedily be acquired. That is the position and it is the main point of the Bill to get these reconstructions areas


acquired speedily. Incidental to that and supporting it are all the new provisions about accelerated procedure.
The original Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, with its limit of five years, was intended to meet the exceptional circumstances where you could not wait to declare your intention to reconstruct and where it was obvious from the start that this was land which could be acquired straight away. The main structure of the Bill on Clause 1 and the procedure remain intact. I really was surprised at the hon. Member saying that this was taking the whole thing out of the Bill. It is Clause 1 procedure which is important. This proviso to meet an absolutely obvious and cleared site can well be exercised in two years.

Mr. Woodburn: I recall the Minister saying when some of the Amendments were under discussion—I am not sure whether it was this one—that he would have considered this if he was sure that all the other procedure would remain unaltered. Could he quote from HANSARD to show whether that statement refers to this particular part of the Bill? I was under the impression that it referred to another part altogether.

Mr. Morrison: I can reply to my hon. Friend by saying—though I have not

HANSARD by me—I could pledge my recollection absolutely on that discussion. It was an Amendment of this kind referring only to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 and not to the general provisions of the Bill. I said that if I get away with the rest of the accelerated procedure intact I would accept precisely this Amendment.

Mr. Bowles: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. This Amendment was moved in Committee and refused by the Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was withdrawn."]—because of the feeling of the Committee. I am clear in my mind that the view was held in Committee that five years was the right period and two years was the wrong period. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) has moved the same Amendment again, it has been accepted and it rather seems that the House is now being asked to take a different view from the view taken by the Government on the Committee stage.

Mr. Speaker: That often happens. On the Report stage we often reverse a decision taken on the Committee stage.
Question put, "That 'five' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 66; Noes, 177.

Division No. 39.]
AYES.
[1.15 p.m.


Acland, Sir R. T. D.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Manning, C. A. G.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.


Beaumont, Hubert (Batley)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Bevan, A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hayday, A.
Mort, D. L.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Muff, G.


Brown, W. J. (Rugby)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Naylor, T. E.


Burden, T. W.
Horabin, T. L.
Neal, H.


Charleton, H. C.
Hubbard, T. F.
Oldfield, W. H.


Chater, D.
Hughes, R. Moelwyn
Riley, B.


Cluse, W. S.
Hynd, J. B.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E.


Daggar, G.
Kendall, W. D.
Sloan, A.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Key, C. W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. Joseph (H'gton le Spring)


Douglas, F. C. R.
Lawson, J. J. (Chester-le-Street)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leonard, W.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Dugdale, John (W. Bromwich)
Leslie, J. R.
Walkden, E. (Doncaster)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McEntee, V. la. T.
White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)


Edwards, Walter J. (Whitechapel)
McGhee, H. G.
White, H. (Derby, N.E.)


Foster, W.
Mack, J. D.
Windsor, W.


Frankel, D.
McKinlay, A. S.



George, Mogan Lloyd (Anglesey)
MacLaren, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:—


Glanville, J. E.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Mr. Bowles and Mr. Silkin.


Granville, E. L.






NOES.


Albery, Sir Irving
Beamish, Rear-Admiral, T. P.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Beattie, F. (Cathcart)
Bower, Norman (Harrow)


Apsley, Lady
Beaumont, Maj. Hn. R. E. B.(P'tsm'th)
Boyce, Sir H. Leslie


Astor, Visc'tess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Beechman, N. A.
Brocklebank, Sir C. E. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Benson, G.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Balfour, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. H.
Blair, Sir R.
Bullock, Capt. M.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Blaker, Sir R.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.




Campbell, Dermot (Antrim)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Raikes, Flight-Lieut. H. V. A. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T. (Bromley)
Hewitt, Dr. A. B.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Cary, R. A.
Hudson, Rt. Hon, R. S. (Southport)
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hulbert, Wing-Commander, N. J.
Richards, R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Robertson, D. (Streatham)


Clarke, Colonel R. S.
Hunter, Sir T.
Robertson, Rt. Hon. Sir M. A. (M'ham)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hutchinson, G. C. (Ilford)
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Cobb, Captain, E. C.
Hutchinson, Lt.-Com. G. I. C. (E'burgh)
Ross, Taylor, W.


Colegate, W. A.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Colman, N. C. D.
Jeffreys, General Sir G. D.
Russell, Sir A. (Tynemouth)


Conant, Major R. J. E.
Jewson, P. W.
Salt, E. W.


Cook, Lt.-Col. Sir T. R. A. M, (N'flk,N.)
John, W.
Savory, Professor, D. L.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T. (St'l'g &amp; C'km'n)
Shephard, S.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Jones, Sir L. (Swansea, W.)
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Keatinge, Major E. M.
Shute, Col. Sir J. J.


Cundiff, F. W.
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Davidson, Viscountess (H'm'l H'mst'd)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


De Chair, Capt. S. S.
Leach, W.
Snadden, W. McN.


Doland, G. F.
Levy, T.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir D. B.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G.
Lewis, O.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Drewe, C.
Liddall, W. S.
Stanley, Col. Rt. Hon. Oliver


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Linstead, H. N.
Storey, S.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Little, Dr. J. (Down)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Duncan, Rt. Hon. Sir A. R. (C. Ldn.)
Lloyd, Major E. G. R. (Renfrew, E.)
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L. (Kens'gton, N.)
Loftus, P. C.
Strickland, Capt. W. F.


Dunglass, Lord
Lucas, major Sir J. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Eccles, D. M.
Lyle, Sir C. E. Leonard
Studholme, Major H. G.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Elliot, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. W. E.
Macdonald, Captain Peter (I. of W.)
Suirdale, Colonel Viscount


Emery, J. F.
McKie, J. H.
Summers, G. S.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Magnay, T.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Etherton, Ralph
Makins, Brig.-Gen. Sir E.
Tate, Mrs. Mavis C.


Evans, Col. Sir A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mander, G. le M.
Taylor, Major C. S. (Eastbourne)


Fildes, Sir H.
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thomas, Dr. W. S. Russell (S'th'm'tn)


Galbraith, Comdr. T. D.
Marlowe, Lt.-Col. A.
Thorineycroft, Maj. G. E. P. (Stafford)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mathers, G.
Tinker, J. J.


George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G. Lloyd(P'broke)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Tomlinson, G.


Gibbins, J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P.
Walkden, A. G. (Bristol, S.)


Gibson, Sir C. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Col. Sir A. (Hull)


Greenwell, Colonel T. G.
Mills, Colonel J. D. (New Forest)
Waterhouse, Captain Rt. Hon. C.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mitchell, Colonel H. P.
Watkins, F. C.


Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)
Molson, A. H. E.
Webbe, Sir W. Harold


Harris, Rt. Hon. Sir P. A.
Morgan, R. H. (Stourbridge)
Wells, Sir S. Richard


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.


Henderson, J. J. Craik (Leeds, N.E.)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's)
White, Sir Dymoke (Fareham)


Herbert, Petty Officer A. P. (Oxford U.)
Morrison, Major, J. G. (Salisbury)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W. (Blaydon)


Hawlett, T. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Higgs, W. F.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Petherick, M.
Woolley, Major W. E.


Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Pilkington, Captain R. A.



Holdsworth, Sir H.
Prescott, Capt. W. R. S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:—


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Major A. S. L. Young and




Captain McEwen.

Word "two" there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 7, leave out "or under sub-section (2) of this section."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 3.—(Power to purchase land for highways in connection with areas of extensive war damage, or with land needed for re-location.)

Amendment made: In page 7, line 21, leave out "he," and insert:
the Minister or the Miinster of War Transport, as the case may be."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 10.—(Power to Purchase land for certain planning purposes.)

1.25 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 16, line 5, at end, insert:
Provided that a local planning authority shall not be authorised under this Sub-section

to acquire land to meet a requirement falling within paragraph (a). (c) or (d) thereof if the Minister is satisfied that the nature of the requirement and other circumstances are not such as to render it expedient in the public interest that the land used for meeting the requirement should have been acquired by a local planning authority, that a person other than a local planning authority is able and willing to meet the requirement at such time and in such manner as may be requisite, and that land is available therefor on reasonable terms.
The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) during the Committee stage moved an Amendment to ensure that these powers under Clause 10 would be used when the requirements could be met only by owners, and we undertook to reconsider the drafting to make it plain that compulsory purchase is not to be authorised when the purpose in question can be properly carried out by a private person and the land is avail-


able without compulsory purchase. This Amendment is designed to give expression to that undertaking. It precludes compulsory purchase under Clause 10, other than for a public open space or for a playing field, which is of course reserved, in cases where the nature of the project does not make acquisition by the local planning authority necessary. Of course, if you have a case where the development requires a substantial area of land with a multiplicity of ownerships, unified purchase is probably the best course and would be resorted to. In other cases if some person other than the local planning authority is able and willing to carry out the development when and how required, and he already has the land or is able to obtain it on reasonable terms, then we think that purpose should be achieved without resort to compulsory purchase. I want the House to understand that this Amendment leaves the authority with ample reserve powers. It can acquire all the necessary land and make it available for suitable development in cases in which such a course is necessary in the public interest.

Commander Galbraith: I would like to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for inserting this Amendment in the Bill. I think it will be very beneficial from every point of view.

1.27 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I must again express my profound disappointment that this Amendment has been put down by the Minister. Once more he is completely altering the sense of the provision in the Bill which had met with general satisfaction. The Amendment whittles the powers of local authorities. At the very best it slows down procedure and involves an inquiry as to whether some person may be willing, or may profess to be willing, to carry out a development which the local authority regards as necessary. I would draw the attention of the House to the work which it is suggested somebody other than the local authority might be willing to carry out:
 … development of a class which is needed for the proper planning of the area of the authority.
Is it suggested that some other person may be willing—

Mr. Morrison: And able—

Mr. Silkin: —may be willing or able to carry out such a development whether it is in its existing state or as intended, that is, in the manner in which the local authority wants it developed in order to secure a proper balance between the development of that class and other classes? Is it really conceivable that anyone would be able or anxious to carry out such a development? I know the answer to that is, that if such a person does not come along, the local authority goes on with it, but, I submit, what is the use of suggesting to private persons that they may conceivably carry out such a type of development? Paragraphs (c) and (d) are equally unlikely for anyone other than a local authority to carry out. I submit that the sole result of putting in such a provision—of which local authorities have had no notice and of which nobody has had notice for it was only put on the Paper this morning -will be to cause delay and confusion. Once more I want to repeat that the cumulative result of the Amendments which the Minister has to-day put down is to delay and complicate the procedure. I had occasion, when the Financial Resolution was before the House, to compliment my right hon. Friend on what he had done. Now, however, I am afraid I must withdraw all those compliments. My right hon. Friend is getting back to a Bill which is as bad as, if not worse than, the Bill which was originally introduced. Every one of the Amendments put down by my right hon. Friend to-day is a reactionary one, and this one is equally reactionary. I beg the House not to accept it, and I beg my right hon. Friend to look at it again to see whether he will not return to the frame of mind which he was in at the beginning of the Committee stage.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Once again it seems that the fears of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) are entirely ill-founded. His argument seemed to be that there was no case in which private enterprise could carry out the matters dealt with in paragraphs (a), (c) or (d). The hon. Member talked about delay. If all the development of our country is to be left to local authorities one thing that will happen is that there will be delay. I see no reason why, if a man is ready to come along and develop in conformity with a plan approved by the planning authority, he should not be allowed to get


on with the job. I see no reason why the Bill should not take advantage of both public and private enterprise in dealing with the problem. The hon. Member seems to be concerned whether anyone else might carry out part of the functions which local authorities according to him wish to acquire, namely, a complete monopoly. I welcome the fact that the Minister has put down this Amendment, although I do not think it is as well drafted as the original Amendment proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), which seemed to be very much clearer. I would ask the Minister to consider whether the words "should have been," should not, in fact, read "and be"?

1.32 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I must confess that I think this is an improvement on the proposed Amendment, which was full of so many "shall nots," "will nots," and "cannots," that any Philadelphia lawyer would not know what to decide after he had read it. This gives discretion to the Minister, but I think it is a pity it is going into the Bill because it will handicap greatly the consideration of these things. It may not handicap an eventual decision, but if the Minister has to look into every corner and under every bed before he can make a decision he will be prevented from getting on with the job as speedily as he otherwise might do. But on the whole I think this is an improvement, and if I had to choose between one and the other I would choose this one.

1.33 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: In the event of a local authority developing an area it will be remembered that there is a proposal in the background for a levy of something like 80 per cent. to be imposed on the increased value attaching to the land as a result of the improvement. I have no objection to development by private persons; many Members know that I have fought them in the past because they have not done it. I want to know whether there is to be a differentiation in Government policy. In the event of a private individual developing land will he be subject to the levy that will be imposed upon the increased site value as a result of the de-

velopment, or will he be immune from the levy, as against the local planning authority, which will be subject to it? I am wondering whether the Amendment is not rather subtle, and whether the Minister sees any subtlety in it. It seems to me that he does not know the trickery that goes on in these Debates. I am wondering whether this is preparatory to getting private developers so to develop land that they will be immune from the levy coming on the increased value of the site as a result of the development.

1.35 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire): There is a positive danger here of a person other than the local authority invading that local authority's area. I presume that local authorities will be left to meet all that is most costly, plus this fact: they must build houses of a standard approved by the Department of Health in Scotland and the Ministry of Health in England. It has happened in the past in Scotland that private developers have built houses of considerably lower standards. An outstanding example was in Edinburgh, where the local authority developed a site and handed it over to a contractor to provide houses to his own specification, plans of which he did not submit to the Department of Health because he was receiving no direct subsidy for the houses. The subsidy came in an indirect way, by the provision of roads and services. I want to know whether the private developer will be compelled in any such development to submit his plans for approval in the same way as the local authority must submit plans of their houses for approval as to standard. I, personally, think that planning belongs to an authority which has control, but if we can have an assurance that the standard of houses will not be lower than the official standard I think we shall be reassured.

1.38 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I want to intervene for only a few minutes. In answer to the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), this Bill has no application to Scotland and I must be a little careful in replying to him in detail. In so far as what he said has application to England and Wales I can assure him that the point does not come within these Subsections at all. No private developer


will be immune from any of these controls. I must not be tempted by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. McLaren) to discuss what would be wildly out of Order, namely, the proposals in the Government White Paper. I am sure that when that matter comes before the House it will not be beyond the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman to see that his point is properly covered.
The main purpose of my intervention is to reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin), that this Amendment in any way took him by surprise. It is the simple and literal fulfilment of an undertaking I gave to the House in Committee on 4th October. To place the matter absolutely beyond question, I will, with the permission of the House, read what I said on that occasion:
My hon. and gallant Friend has drawn attention to the fact that the words as they stand in the Bill may be too wide. On the other hand, in our opinion, his words are too narrow. I think I could undertake that the wording will be reconsidered with a view to making it plain that compulsory purchase is not to be authorised where the purpose in question can be properly carried out by a private person and the land would be available to him without compulsory purchase. We shall reconsider the words but with not so much limitation as my hon. and gallant Friend proposes."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 4th October, 1944; Vol. 403, c. 1075.]
I then invited my hon. and gallant Friend to withdraw his Amendment. That is the undertaking I gave, and the House cannot possibly be taken by surprise at the Government fulfilling that undertaking. I must say, in fairness to the hon. Member for Peckham, that he then reserved his position and thus left it open to him to oppose the Amendment at a later stage.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 11.—(Power to authorise purchase by local planning authority for area where land is in lieu of by another authority.)

1.41 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 17, line 4, at end, insert:
(3) The powers of this Section shall not be exercised except in agreement between the local planning authority first mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section, and the local planning authority in whose area the land is situated.
This is a manuscript Amendment, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I have another one which refers to the same matter.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): As they come in the same place perhaps the hon. Member would read both, and they can be taken together.

Mr. Silkin: My other Amendment is, in page 17, after new Sub-section (3), insert:
The powers of this Section shall not be exercised unless the Minister is satisfied that development of the land by the planning authority in whose area the land is situated will be in conformity with any proposals submitted to the Minister by the local planning authority first mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section, and approved by him, and will achieve the object of those proposals.
These formidable words can be explained simply. Clause 11, as it now stands, authorises the Minister to say to a local authority which desires to acquire land outside its area, "We shall not give the land to you, we shall give it to the authority in whose area the land is proposed to be acquired." That may be a perfectly reasonable thing to do, provided conditions are attached to it. In the first instance, the local authority which desires to acquire land outside its area is not doing it for fun. They are doing it for a specific purpose, to carry out the task which has been imposed on them by Statute. They may require that land for other purposes but the Minister may say, "You may need the land for your planning purposes, but we are not going to give it to you. We are going to give it to the other local authority." But the Minister has to be satisfied that the other local authority will, in fact, develop that land in the manner which the first local authority proposed to develop it; in other words, that the land will be so used regardless of ownership as to satisfy the requirements of the authority which was proposing to acquire it. If the Minister accepts that he will be meeting one of our objections.
The other Amendment proposes that he should not exercise this power except in agreement both with the local authority proposing to acquire it and the local authority in whose area the land was proposed to be acquired.. In other words, he ought to get the two local authorities together and secure their agreement. I have no doubt that in every reasonable case that agreement will be secured. Without these Amendments it looks as though this is merely an arbitrary power which the Minister is proposing to exercise.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment.

1.45 p.m.

Mr. Morrison: I have not had time to consider this proposal in detail and I could not accept the words as they stand without examining them. I think the Amendment may have been proposed under some slight misapprehension of what may happen under Clause 11. The Minister would see to it that the land, whoever owns it, is developed in accordance with proposals which the Minister regards as desirable, but the point that occurs to me is that those proposals might not be exactly those submitted by the authority which in the first place applied to purchase the land. In other words, there may be two authorities after the same land and there may be a solution of their joint needs which is not that put forward by either of them. So I should not like this power to be limited in advance to an absolute agreement, such as I gather the hon. Member suggests, because I can well conceive cases of conflicting needs for the same land where it would be the duty of the Minister to settle the matter. But I am bound to say that, in envisaging the operation of the Clause, I cannot conceive it possible that the Minister would exercise his powers without the fullest consultation not only with the authority which asked for the land in the first place but also with the authority whose land it normally is, and it would have to be done in that way. I do not like to accept the Amendment without proper consideration nor do I like to turn down the idea without further examination, but, if the hon. Member lets me consider it between now and later stages of the Bill, I will see if there is anything that can be done.

1.47 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I hope my right hon. Friend will be careful, when considering it, about the word "agreement." He used the word "consultation." I am afraid that the effect of the Amendment, as I understand it from hearing it, would be seriously to delay the development not only inside but outside the first local authority's area also. I hope the hon. Member will not be responsible for causing any unnecessary delay in insisting on the word ".agreement."
Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 12.— (Modifications as to procedure for authorising purchase in case of land held for carrying on of statutory undertakings.)

1.48 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somerville): I beg to move, in page 17, line 22, to leave out "Department", and insert "Minister."

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Are we not going to have an explanation of these changes, which were resisted when proposed in Committee?

The Attorney-General: I do not think my hon. Friend uses the right word when he says "resisted." Looking across to the opposite side of the Bill as it then was it is clear that "the Department" meant "the Minister." We realise that there was a perfectly good point here and it is rather important to use the best phraseology. I pay a tribute to my hon. Friend. We think his suggestion on balance is right, and we therefore adopt it.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I congratulate the Minister on what he is doing. He is the person responsible to the House and it is right that his name should appear.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I, too, should like to thank the Minister for adopting this suggestion.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments made.
Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 28, leave out from "Act," to "the," in line 29, and insert:
which Minister was or is the appropriate Minister as defined in this Sub-section."—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 13.—(Restriction on purchase of commons and open spaces.)

1.52 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 20, line 5, after "that," insert:
the land is required for the widening of an existing highway and that".
When this Clause was in Committee it was strongly urged that additional protection should be given. To justify the Sub-section which was then proposed to be left out, I gave reasons why some such words must be in the Clause. It was to cover obviously desirable improvements, and I gave the example of a high-


way. The Government have found it possible to limit the words to cover the sort of case that I mentioned.

Captain Duncan: I think a word of congratulation is due to my hon. Friend for seeing the wisdom of making this Amendment and we are extremely grateful to him. The nibbling away of commons and open spaces and parks has been going on for some years.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 14.—(Provisions as to purchase of licensed premises.)

1.54 p.m.

Sir Richard Wells: I beg to move, in page 21, line 14, after "with", insert "before September, nineteen hundred and thirty-nine."
The object of this is that, if licensed houses have been damaged during the war period or taken over for the war effort, that should be no reason why they should be referred to the licensing justices for compensation if they were not redundant before the war. These houses have not been trading at all for many years. The point is that if the local authorities take them over and pay for them, they can refer them to the licensing justices for compensation. That might put the licensing justices in a difficulty. They might have to find out whether they are redundant and the reason for which they have been referred. The levy is for the purpose of paying for redundant houses. It would hardly be fair that houses destroyed or taken over should be considered redundant because they have not been trading for something like four or five years. It is in direct contradiction to the finding, of the Morris Committee. If this goes through as it is, it will open a great opportunity for litigation and a great deal of delay.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: I beg to second the Amendment. As a licensing justice, I appreciate fully what My hon. Friend has said.

1.56 p.m.

The Attorney-General: The Bill deals in the main with two types of area, the blitzed and the blighted. As far as licences in blitzed areas are concerned, there has been a Committee presided over by Mr. John Morris which has made certain recommendations on a rather complicated problem, namely, dealing with licences in an area which is going to be

replanned and reconstructed, possibly in the old territory, possibly somewhere else. Those recommendations have not yet been embodied in legislation but, if they were embodied, or substantially embodied, they would cover in the main the point that my hon. Friend has in mind. No one can pledge the future, but the Government intend to introduce legislation on the lines of the Morris Committee's recommendations at an early date. One may reasonably anticipate that legislation on these lines will be on the Statute Book before this becomes a practical problem. I think that is the main answer in respect of blitzed areas. Even apart from that, I think there, is a difficulty about going back to 1939. My hon. Friend says that in some cases these premises may have been taken over during the war, or that in their vicinity a number of houses are on the ground, but surely the justices, in deciding whether a licence was redundant, would not have regard to the exceptional conditions of the war but would look ahead. They would say, "This is a perfectly good licence. Here is the plan. There has been an application for a Clause 1 order. It is obvious that there is the intention to redevelop this as a residential area. We have to consider whether or not this licence is redundant in the light of the facts as they are known to be and as we know they are likely to develop."
Therefore, there will be a difficulty about accepting the Amendment even if there were not a carefully worked out plan such as that which is contained in the Morris Committee recommendations. The suggestions there have been arrived at after close consultation with everybody concerned, and it is thought that, if you get the organisation recommended, you will be able to amalgamate and re-allocate the licences without calling on the compensation fund. I fully appreciate the desire that the compensation fund should not be raised unreasonably in dealing with this problem. So far as the blighted areas are concerned, I think my hon. Friend will agree that we could not go back to 1939; one must consider things as they are to-day. We fully realise the point behind the Amendment, but I believe that in the main it will be made clear—at least, I hope it will be—by what I have said, namely, that the Government propose to legislate on the lines of the Morris Committee.

Sir R. Wells: With that explanation, for which I thank the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 15.—(Validity and date of operation of orders, etc.)

2.3 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 21, line 29, leave out "twenty-one," and insert "twenty-eight."
This Amendment has reference to the Debate in Committee on extending the period under which it is possible to appeal against the validity of an Order. My right hon. Friend then said that he was prepared to accept an extension from 21 days to 28 within which to make an appeal. I think that 28 days is the very minimum; many people think it should be six weeks.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment.

2.4 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I should not have had any objection to this Amendment but for the fact that the Minister has already given way on so many others that, in the aggregate, the amount of time which will be lost will be very great. Obviously it is difficult to say that 21 days is right and 28 days wrong, or that 42 days is right and something else wrong. It is difficult to argue about these things in terms of so many days, but we have to look at the whole picture. The picture which is now presented is this: First, there is an advertisement of the intention of a local authority to proceed. At least two months' notice is given, and the Minister has just said that he hopes the notice will be longer. Then there are the advertisements of the scheme itself and a period of not less than 28 days in which to put in objections. Then there will normally be a public inquiry and everyone who has a right to be heard will be. Then the Order will be made, and, after all that, a person who considers that the Order has been improperly made has a right to go to the High Court. I should have thought that, taking all these things together, 21 days would be sufficient in this Clause. I beg the Minister not to give way any more and to keep the time to 21 days.

2.6 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr.

Silkin) is giving sufficient weight to what we said in Committee and what we have done in other passages in the Bill. There are good precedents for six weeks. There is also one precedent for 21 days, but the period that, on the whole, commended itself to the House in Committee was 28 days as a general compromise. From the point of view of the working of a local authority, it is not convenient to have a lot of different time limits scattered about the Bill. As we have made the period of notice generally 28 days, it is convenient that the same period should be inserted here.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 16.—Incorporation of Lands Clauses Acts, etc., with modifications including modifications providing for expedited completion of purchases.)

2.8 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 22, line 25, leave out "to enter on the land," and insert:
as respects the whole or any part of the land, to enter thereon.
I hope that I shall have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on this Amendment, because it carries out a promise to look into a point which he invited us to examine. He rightly pointed out that the expedited procedure should be capable of application, if so desired, to part only of the area of a compulsory purchase order instead of either the whole or none. We think that that is a good point, and this Amendment remedies what my hon. Friend pointed out as a possible defect.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 32, after "order," insert:
as respects all or any of the land to which the order relates, being land as to which the said Minister is satisfied as aforesaid."—[Mr. H. Strauss.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 17.—(Disposal or appropriation by local planning authority of land held by them for purposes of this Part.)

2.10 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I beg to move, in page 24, line 5, leave out "exceptional."
We had a discussion on this Subsection in Committee, and there was a strong feeling against it. The Minister, however, insisted on keeping it in. It was pointed out that he had deliberately


restricted his discretion to allow a local planning authority to sell land or lease it for not more than 99 years. The object of the Amendment is to give the Minister more discretion in allowing planning authorities to sell land, perhaps back to their owners, than he has in the Bill. There are various circumstances in which it would be reasonable for owners to get back the land which they owned before. From an investment point of view, in certain cases, it would probably be a better security to have the freehold than the leasehold. There is no security in the Bill that the local authority will grant a 99 years' lease. It might be on much shorter terms, 21 or even 14 years. The omission of the word "exceptional" would give the Minister greater discretion, for the courts might interpret the word as so limiting his discretion as to make it impossible for him ever to agree to a suggestion for sale or lease put up by a planning authority.

2.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel that this is an occasion when hon. Members above the Gangway on this side ought to give us their support. They are always talking about what is progressive and what is reactionary. I suggest that for people to be permitted to own their own homes is progressive. I would like to see every man in the country own his own home. This Amendment would be helpful in that direction.

2.12 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I cannot advise the House to accept the Amendment, although it would perhaps make less difference to the operation of the Subsection than some Members may suppose. I do not wish to express any general view on the subject of freehold or leasehold, but where a local authority or, indeed, a private person, acquires a considerable amount of land in the interests of good planning, one great convenience of the leasehold system with a proper length of lease is that which was pointed out by the Uthwatt Committee. It would prevent the problems that lead to the area being replanned to-day arising again and causing similar difficulties some years later.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The power to re-acquire the land when it is necessary

to re-plan it is laid down in the Bill, so that there will be no difficulty in getting the land back when it would be required again for redevelopment.

Mr. Strauss: I do not think that is so. We are dealing with land which has been, after all proper safeguards, acquired by the local authority to be developed as a whole. In these circumstances we think that the normal way in which it will be developed and disposed of is by lease. Under a later Clause we have taken power for the Minister to control the situation, supposing a local authority refuses to give leases of adequate length. The cases where the Minister would authorise a disposal for longer periods than by a 99 years' lease are exceptional. On the whole, therefore, we think it is better that the word "exceptional" should remain. Hon. Members may consider that there are certain classes of case of which, perhaps, the most obvious example is land required for churches, where it is desirable that a freehold should be granted. There would be nothing impossible about "exceptional" applying to all of a limited class. The word on the whole expresses the position accurately. I do not think it will have any undesirable effects such as hon. Members fear, and it certainly will not prevent the Minister doing what he thinks is proper. I do not think there was any other point, and in those circumstances I invite my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment.

2.15 p.m.

Sir J. Mellor: Would not the purpose which the Parliamentary Secretary has in mind be equally well achieved by disposing of the freehold and at the same time imposing the necessary covenants, to secure that the local planning authority shall maintain some regular control for planning purposes over the use to which the land is put by the freeholder? We should really get the same result by the planning authority disposing of the freehold as they would if they granted the lease, but at the same time it would have the advantage which my hon. and gallant Friend has pointed out of enabling people who are going to live on the property having the freehold, which is a source of pride and satisfaction to every Englishman.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will not persist


with this Amendment. We had a long discussion on the subject in Committee and I endeavoured to point out that control by leases by the great landlords in the past had led to the best planning that exists in our cities to-day. The alternative suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) that we should achieve the same result by means of covenants running with the land is not sound, as I think he will agree upon reflection. Covenants are restrictive in their operation. They prevent the doing of this or that. It is far better, for planning, to do as the great landlords did, have leases proportionate to the proper life of the building and then a free hand to face the future with a proper plan and a proper use of the building.
It may be argued that it does not make very much difference, and that what is exceptional and what is not is often a matter of opinion; but there should be no dubiety. The normal thing is for development by just and proper leases and provision must be made for the freehold being disposed of in certain cases. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned Churches, where they cannot consecrate the ground unless they have the freehold. Many other cases might be cited and we think it is better as a matter of policy to have the words in so that we can be honest with the House, It is only in exceptional circumstances that the freehold should be parted with.
Amendment negatived.

2.17 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 24, line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 23, and insert:
and the authority have refused to dispose of it to him or are unable to reach agreement with him as to the manner in which or the terms or conditions on or subject to which it is to be disposed of to him, the Minister may, after consultation with the authority and that person, require the authority to offer to dispose of it to him, and give directions as to the 1paanner of the disposal and as to all or any of the terms or conditions on or subject to which it is to be offered to him:
Provided that the authority shall not be required by any such directions (except to such extent as may appear to the Minister to be requisite in any particular case for giving effect to the last preceding subsection) to offer to dispose of land for a money consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained, having regard to the other terms and conditions on and subject to which

the offer is to be made so, however, that in estimating the best consideration any amount which only a particular purchaser might be prepared to offer by reason of special needs of his shall be disregarded and any difference as to what is the best consideration shall be referred to and determined by an official arbitrator to be appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919.
As was promised on the Committee stage, this matter has been looked into and we have made what we think considerable advances towards the view which was suggested, although some hon. Members may think that we have not gone far enough. We have provided safeguards for the local planning authorities in two respects. First of all, the Minister must consult with them before requiring them to dispose of land, and secondly the authority may not be required by such direction to offer to dispose of land for a money consideration less than the best which can reasonably be obtained, except to the extent that the Minister may consider it necessary for re-accommodating people whose land has been taken. Any difference of opinion as to what is the best consideration will be referred to the arbitration of the official arbitrator.
To deal with the rub between us on this point, it has been considered essential—on this point we have not been able to give way—that the Minister should have the right in the last resort to require the local authorities to dispose of land. I need not go over the reasons, but the general standpoint is that the Minister must have the final control in matters of planning. With regard to the point which was suggested to us, regarding offers by a particular class of developers being taken into account, the price that a special purchaser might be willing to pay might have the result, in our view, that the developer whom the Minister was anxious to encourage would not be able to have the land. The arbitrator is not entitled to take into account any special price. We have therefore made an effort to came to a reasonable line of compromise on this point, and I hope that my hon. Friend who felt so strongly about it will appreciate our efforts in that direction.

Mr. Silkin: I would like your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to a manuscript Amendment to the Amendment, and I would like to know whether you propose to call it now or at a later stage.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): It would be better to decide whether to omit the words which the Minister proposes to leave out of the Bill, and then we can proceed to insert words in their place. We could then take the hon. Member's Amendment.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill."

2.21 p.m.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from "him" in line 1, to "the" in line 3, and insert:
on grounds other than those of proper planning.
There has been a good deal of discussion on the Sub-section which the Minister is proposing to amend. The general objection during the Committee stage was not so much to the powers they would confer upon the Minister. Most sensible people recognise that some powers have to be conferred upon the Minister to give a direction in the last resort. The quarrel that some of us had with the Clause as it then stood was that it gave the Minister unlimited power. There was no limitation put upon his discretion. I take it that the Minister has recognised that there was something in that objection. He actually invited any Member of the Committee to put up a Clause which would limit in a satisfactory way the discretion conferred upon him. The Amendment which I move is an attempt to carry out that change.
The only ground upon which the Minister would interfere is to be that the local authority are not carrying out their planning functions properly. They have presumably acquired the land for planning purposes and the Minister is not satisfied that they are using their powers properly, and therefore he will intervene. In other words, his intervention is on planning grounds. The words of his Amendment are designed to ensure that he will interfere on planning grounds only if a local authority is refusing to dispose of land. If they are refusing to dispose of land on a legitimate town planning ground, I submit that the Minister should not interfere. Therefore, the issue is, does my

right hon. Friend want to direct local authorities to dispose of their land on any other ground than on planning grounds?
Let us examine the instances which he gave. Possibly a local authority would be against a particular denomination and might not be willing to dispose of land for the purposes of that denomination. Such refusal would be on grounds other than those of proper planning and the authority would be caught by this Amendment. My right hon. Friend could intervene and direct that the land could be disposed of. To take another example; suppose an authority refused to dispose of land because they were opposed in principle to a co-operative society or to one of the large multiple stores. That refusal would be on grounds other than those of proper planning and would be on grounds of prejudice. In such a case my right hon. Friend could again intervene. What the local authorities fear legitimately is that some Minister may intervene to direct that land should be disposed of on grounds which have nothing to do with planning and we feel that planning considerations should be inserted as a criterion.
I repeat that nobody objects for a moment to the ultimate power being conferred on the Minister in the case of an unreasonable or recalcitrant authority. Obligations have been laid upon the planning authority, and as long as the authority are carrying them out in the spirit of proper planning the Minister ought not to interfere. I hope the words I propose are acceptable and meet the case. They give the Minister adequate power to intervene when a local authority is not acting properly. It seems to me that they limit his power, in cases where a local authority are acting within their powers and carrying out their town planning obligations.

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

2.30 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I cannot advise the House to accept this Amendment. I am most reluctant to repeat the speech which I made in winding up the discussion on this Clause in Committee on 5th October, but the question is, who is to be the judge? The Minister of Town and Country Planning, of course, acts on planning considerations, that is his function, but there is not necessarily agree-


ment about that between the local authority and the Minister. The question ultimately is really whether the Minister of Town and Country Planning is, or is not, to be responsible to this House for the performance of the functions laid upon him by Statute. I reminded the House, when it was in Committee, of the terms of the Minister of Town and Country Planning Act. The duty was placed upon the Minister to secure
consistency and continuity in the framing and execution of a national policy with respect to the use and development of land throughout England and Wales.
It is, of course, possible for a Minister to go wrong. It is equally possible for a local authority to go wrong. The question that the House must consider is whether they wish to hold my right hon. Friend responsible, in the last resort, for the planning of these areas. I believe that the House does so desire. If so, it is quite impossible to accept this Amendment.
I have no doubt that the local planning authority may in certain instances refuse to dispose of land on the grounds of what they believe to be proper planning. But my right hon. Friend, with his responsibility to this House, may take a different view, and in that case the view of my right hon. Friend must prevail, if he is to discharge his statutory function. This is not something which we are now inserting for the first time. It was for precisely similar reasons that in 1943 we took power to control decisions on interim development applications. They undoubtedly concern the local planning authority in the first instance. Nevertheless, in order that my right hon. Friend might be in a position to discharge his responsibilities to the House and country, we took power for my right hon. Friend to say how these applications should be decided. There are other Clauses which we have introduced into this Bill with the same object. I made clear, on the occasion to which I have referred, that we must keep the powers we had in the Clause, but that it might be possible on two points to meet the desire of the local authorities for safeguards. Safeguards on these two points are what the Government Amendment carries out. We can meet the local authorities' point of view on these two points, but we cannot admit on any ground that in the disposal of land the Minister shall in fact be impotent. For

that reason I am unable to advise the House to accept the manuscript Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

2.36 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 24, line 23, at end, insert:
(8) In the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section a local planning authority shall have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest, and in particular buildings included in any list compiled or approved under the provisions of the Section (Designation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest) of this Act, and the Minister shall not give his consent to the disposal under this Section of any land comprising a building included in such a list unless either—

(a) the consent is given subject to such conditions or limitations as in the opinion of the Minister will secure the preservation of the building; or
(b) the Minister is satisfied that the purpose which the local planning authority seek to achieve by the proposed exercise of their powers under this Section is one which ought in the public interest to be carried out, and either that the preservation of the building would prevent the carrying out of that purpose, whether by the use of the land in question or otherwisee, or that the effect of preserving the building on the carrying out as aforesaid of the said purpose would be such that notwithstanding the desirability of preserving the building it is inexpedient so to do.

In this Sub-section the expression 'preservation,' in relation to a building, means the preservation thereof either in its existing state or subject only to such alterations or extensions as will not seriously affect its character.
This is the main Amendment to give effect to the Government's acceptance of the principle of the proposals put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). These proposals, as the House will remember, were supported by Members in every party and received enthusiastic support. The hon. Member for Twickenham withdrew his Amendment on the Government's undertaking to consider the most appropriate steps to take to give effect to what he desired. The first step we have already taken at the beginning of our proceedings to-day—a new Clause providing for lists of buildings. We now come to this Amendment. I think the words speak for themselves:
In the exercise of the powers conferred by this Section a local planning authority shall


have regard to the desirability of preserving features of special architectural or historic interest, and in particular buildings included in any list compiled or approved …
under the Clause we adopted at the beginning of our proceedings to-day. The Minister is instructed by this Sub-section not to give his approval to a disposal of any land comprising a building included in such lists unless one or other of two conditions is satisfied. The first condition is, if the consent is given subject to such conditions or limitations as in the opinion of the Minister will secure the preservation of the building. The second one is that the Minister is satisfied that the purpose which the local planning authority seek to achieve by the proposed exercise of their powers is one which ought in the public interest to be carried out, and that in addition to that one of two conditions is satisfied: Either that the carrying out of that purpose whether by the use of the land in question or otherwise would be prevented by the preservation of the building, or alternatively, that the effect of preserving the building on the carrying out of what I might call this approved purpose would be such that, notwithstanding the desirability of preserving the building, it is inexpedient so to do.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: On a point of Order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether a general discussion will take place now, in which case some Amendments on Clause 40 might be ruled out of Order, because Amendments to Clause 40 raise the whole question over again?

Mr. Speaker: I think the Amendments to which the hon. and gallant Member refers raise specific points, which would not be covered by this Amendment. I think it would be better to wait until we reach those Amendments before we discuss them.

Mr. Strauss: The effect of what we are doing is in some respects perhaps wider, and in some respects narrower, than in the original proposal of the hon. Member for Twickenham. But we have secured this, I think; the lists will be lists of great authority and, unless very strong reason is shown, anything included in those lists must be preserved. There may be cases where, notwithstanding the desirability of preserving an individual building, it may have to give way to some imperative need. That is provided for at the end of

this Sub-section. I think the simplest way to deal with this matter will be for me to conclude with this explanation, and if there are points raised, and the House should give me leave to reply, I can then deal with them, or one of my right hon. Friends can do so.

2.42 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I, of course, welcome the introduction of this new Sub-section and am grateful to the Government for proposing it. Nor do I quarrel with anything which my hon. Friend has just said, but I have some points of criticism on the Sub-section. First of all it seems to me that the word "features" is a wretched word, in which I cannot think my hon. Friend, with his well-known sense of style, can have any pride or pleasure. I do, however, make allowances for his having been very busy in the last few days, and I will not press him too hard on that. Secondly, if hon. Members will look at paragraph (b) of this new Sub-section, they will see that it says very obscurely in go words what the Amendment which I moved in the Committee stage, and which was withdrawn, stated quite clearly in 15 words. But here again I do not want to peer too deeply into the mouth of a gift horse.
I have three questions of substance which I will ask my hon. Friend to consider. The first is that the safeguard of publicity, which was provided for in my Amendment, is absent in his. The intention of a local planning authority to destroy a listed building does not have to be advertised, and the Minister is free to fall in with the plans of the local authority without consulting anybody. It is no use asking questions in Parliament after a building has been destroyed. I hope the need for publicity will be considered. My second point is this. This Amendment seems to put no restriction on the action of a local planning authority between the time of acquisition and the time of disposal. My third point is that Sub-section (1) of Clause 17 refers to the disposal or appropriation of buildings whereas this new Sub-section refers on
to disposal. Is it intended also to apply to appropriation? If so, why does it not say so?
It seems to me that under this very obscure Amendment it would be possible for a local authority first of all to drive


a coach and four through the Sub-section, and then put a bulldozer over the listed buildings in its area. I hope I am wrong, but I would ask my hon. Friend, if he replies with the leave of the House, to reassure me on those points, or to consider dealing with them in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I would like to ask my hon. Friend very briefly to inform us who it is intended shall keep historic buildings in order. I cannot see any liability for keeping them in order.

2.45 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope the Minister will retain the discretion in this matter, because if the method of dealing with historic buildings is so fixed they might become a danger to life, and that would be unreasonable. We have known occasions when people who are never near the historic buildings insist upon retaining them, to the detriment of other people who live near them. The House wishes to retain buildings of great historic value where it can be done consistently with progress; but some people have such a habit of looking backwards that they forget that we have also to look forwards. The Minister has a duty to plan for the future. Sooner or later, the ground has to be cleared; and I hope that no one will interfere with the Minister's reasonable discretion in regard to the preservation of these historic monuments.

2.47 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: If the House will give me leave, I should like to deal with two or three points. The Bill gives final discretion to the Minister, and that is the purpose of the Clause which I am moving. But I should like to say, quite clearly, as one who has studied this matter for some years, that I can think of very few cases of the destruction of such buildings as we have in mind where it has not been utterly foolish from the point of view of the people in whose locality the buildings were. There is a tendency to view much too lightly the destruction of these buildings, and to repent of it afterwards. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) objected to the word "feature," and assumed that I would abominate it. I defend it. When this matter was considered in Committee we all agreed, I thought, that some of the

most admirable things we wished to preserve were not merely individual buildings, but streets, crescents, squares, and so forth, which give their character to so many of our towns and villages. Therefore, we deliberately put in this wider word "feature." But, lest my hon. Friend should think that this is a modern innovation, derived from the films, I would give him this quotation from Dryden, as long ago as 1692:
Examine separately each feature of the picture.
That is what I want the local authorities to do. I think this criticism of "feature" is wrong. There are various points which I should like further to consider, before I give any final answer. What the local authority appropriates is the land. This is a limitation on disposal, and I think the words are correct. I will certainly see whether there is any possibility of a coach-and-four being driven through what we have provided; although I am far from accusing any local authority of wanting to drive a coach-and-four through these words, which embody the obvious intention of Parliament. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Penrith (Lieut.-Colonel Dower) asked what could be done to preserve these buildings. I think that most of the points he wishes to raise can be more appropriately dealt with on a later Clause and that your Ruling, Sir, would prevent either of us being out of Order if we attempted then to deal with them. It may be that, under the conditions or limitations of a lease of these buildings, the authority may provide adequately for their preservation.

Mr. Keeling: What about the question of publication?

Mr. Strauss: A later Government Amendment deals with the question of notice of any alteration to these buildings, and I think that that subject can be raised then.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 18.—(Power of local planning authority to carry out development of land held by them for purposes of this Part.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 32, at end, insert:
(5) Sub-section (8) of the last preceding Section shall apply to the power conferred on a local planning authority by Sub-section (1)


of this Section as it applies to the powers conferred by that Section, with the substitution for references to the disposal of land of references to the carrying out of any such operation as is mentioned in Sub-section (1) of this Section."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 20.—(Authorisation of development on land acquired for purposes of this Part notwithstanding interference with easements, etc.)

2.50 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 26, line 20, at end, insert:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall authorise interference with any such right as is mentioned in Section twenty-three of this Act.
The purpose of the Amendment is to delimit the ground covered by Clauses 20 and 23. We had some discussion on it in Committee. What was wanted was that the rights of laying and maintaining apparatus and rights of way by statutory undertakers should be covered, and not brought into Clause 20 but into the procedure laid down by Clause 23, and that other easements of statutory undertakers and other people should not be so preserved. I think that, by the Amendment, we have met both points of view which were urged upon us, and have carried out what the Committee desired.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 21.—(Power to extinguish highways over land acquired for purposes of this Part.)

2.52 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 27, line 21, after "time," insert:
(not being less than twenty-eight days from the publication of the notice).
This Amendment provides that the time for objections to the proposed Order extinguishing the right of way shall not be less than 28 days. It brings this matter into conformity with other provisions.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 23.—(Extinguishment of rights of way, and rights as to apparatus, of statutory undertakers.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 25, leave out "Department," and insert "Minister."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Consequential Amendments made.

Further Amendments made: In page 30, line 1, after "appointed," insert "by them."

In line 1, leave out from "purpose" to second "and," in line 2.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSES 24, 25, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 35. Consequential Amendments made.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 37.—(Suspension of bye-laws and other enactments: additional powers.)

2.55 P.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I beg to move, in page 45, line 34, leave out "to," and insert "—three and"
The Amendment removes Sections 30, 31, and 32 of the Public Health Act, 1925, from the operation of this Bill. These Sections are very valuable to the local authorities, and I wish to remove them from the Bill, so that it will not be necessary for the Minister to do so at a later period. Under the 1932 Act they were included, but representations were made to the then Minister of Health as to the effect this would have on the work of the local authorities, and consequently, in the model Clauses on town planning which he issued, the Minister excluded them. That is what we are asking for now. Section 30 dealt with the declaration of streets as new streets. That was very valuable to the local authorities. Section 31 dealt with the width of streets in certain cases—again a matter for the discretion of the local authorities; and Section 32 related to the width of streets where buildings are erected on one side of the street. These are three matters which we wish to retain for the discretion of local authorities; and, in view of the fact that a case was made to the Minister after the last Act was passed, and that he did not include them in the model Clauses which he then introduced, I ask that we might have those Sections excluded from this Bill.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to second the Amendment.

2.58 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: Everyone who heard my hon. Friend's plea must realise the importance of these Sections to the local authorities. We want to secure the greatest amount of co-operation we can; and, therefore, we are prepared, in order to assist the local authorities, to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: I suppose that that would not exclude the right of the major authorities to deal with main roads?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think so; but I am afraid I am not sure of that point.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 39.—(Application to agricultural buildings of provisions of planning schemes as to buildings.)

2.59 P.m.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I beg to move, in page 46, line 35, at end, insert:
and,
(c) Where an objection that the working of the farm or holding would be adversely affected is lodged by the owner or occupier, the local planning authority shall, before submitting the order affecting the farm or holding to the Minister, obtain the approval of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
We had a long discussion on this matter on the Committee stage, and I do not want to go into details. I noticed that the Parliamentary Secretary began by saying, in a rather Hitlerite way, that he was determined that his Department should have powers to prevent what it wanted to prevent, but that, at the end of his remarks, he gave us to understand that he realised that the maintenance of agricultural production was more important than the planning of agricultural buildings, and that an interim development order deals with these matters.
I should like some further explanation, because there are a good many hon. Friends of mine who want to know a little more about the interim development order. They want to know what it is likely to contain and how it will deal with the question of agricultural buildings. If the same Order were applied to, say, Scotland as to Yorkshire, or the towns in Sussex, it would quite unnecessarily interfere with a lot of buildings which are necessary for production. I do not want to enlarge on that because we had a good deal of discussion on the subject earlier. Buildings on agricultural holdings in different parts of the country cannot be stereotyped. We were assured that the Minister of Agriculture would be consulted in this planning, and the object of this Amendment is that agricultural producers should be consulted by the planning authorities before any Order is given. Then the Minister quoted the Scott Report. It is quite true that the gist of the Scott Report was that special criteria would not be adopted outside the suitability or otherwise of agricultural buildings, and it is with that object in view that this Amendment is moved. We think the agricultural community ought to be consulted through the Minister of Agriculture or his Committee. This proviso is most important, because agri-

culture varies in different parts of the country and according to the different crops that are grown.

3.3 P.m.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
On the Committee stage I was unable to be here, and as I do feel rather strongly about this Clause, I hope I may be excused if I speak for a little longer than is normal. I understand the Ministry's attitude in not agreeing to withdraw the Clause the other day was, first, that they wanted power to deal with certain abuses that might occur in connection with agricultural buildings, and, secondly, that they did not wish the agricultural industry to be dealt with as something apart from other industries. Up to a point I feel sympathy with both those views. There have been mistakes made in agricultural buildings, as in other buildings, and I am quite certain that no agriculturist wants to be put in a special class and given special treatment, but I do hope that the Minister will recollect that, following up that line of thought, he does not want to be treated purely from an amenity point of view. Agriculturists want their buildings to be treated in the same way as the buildings of manufacturers would be treated. I feel there is a danger that the views of certain people on town planning committees with regard to agricultural buildings are rather out of date. They look for tithe barns rather than Dutch barns and the old-fashioned clamp bricks and stone rather than cement, and so on. Those things are hand produced, and to-day they cannot be afforded. It is inevitable that modern materials such as corrugated iron, cement, and things of that sort are used, and I therefore hope it will be remembered that the agricultural industry wants to be treated like other industries and work on an economic basis and not purely from the amenity point of view for the benefit of town dwellers and the rest of the population.
I feel that the Clause as it stands cannot be welcomed. Under the interpretation Section, No. 53, of the 1932 Act, buildings include structures and erections and practically anything that is built round the farm will come under this head. Even a stone wall or a shelter made of corrugated iron, or anything of that sort, would come under this Clause. I want


to suggest a case as it would be under this Clause and as it would be under the Amendment we are suggesting. A small owner-occupier wishes to put up a building, or, possibly, a shelter along one side of his yard, with some corrugated iron. Under this Clause it would be necessary for him to apply to the surveyor of the local rural district council and the town planning committee. Probably he would be expected to produce a plan, but certainly he would have to produce some sort of specification. On that committee there might be a number of people who thought very much more of the amenity side than of the economic side. They might not agree to it.
The Parliamentary Secretary said the other day that such a person would have the right of appeal to the Minister, and so on, but I want the House to consider for a moment what that actually means. Perhaps he would appeal, in the first case, to the county council, to the town planning committee there, who would be rather 10th, possibly, to interfere. He would then go to the regional officer. As a rule, I do not think the regional officer is very anxious to interfere with local authorities. Then possibly the farmer would come to me. A question would be asked in Parliament and, possibly there would be a talk on the Adjournment, and I doubt, really, whether we should get any satisfaction on either side. We seldom do.
Under the Amendment the procedure would be this: In most counties they have either executive or advisory joint councils for town planning. In either case, whether they are advisory or executive, all the local authorities in the county, the rural district councils and the county council are working together. I think it could surely be agreed that all counties could have a general committee for considering agricultural buildings on which agriculturists and town planning people would be represented. It would be quite easy to do that under the amended Clause. I think the Amendment has purposely been drawn this way, because we cannot see what the position will be after the war. The war agricultural committees and the county agricultural committees may be fused in some way. The point really is that some representatives, either direct representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture or elected repre-

sentatives from the county, representing agricultural interests, would have an opportunity of sitting on that committee to consider these plans. I feel that, in that way, much time might be saved because, quite apart from all the bother of which I spoke, and all the time taken up through the matter being referred to one authority and another, and finally being brought to this House, months might elapse and the reason for erecting the buildings might have gone completely. I suggest that if this Amendment can be included, the work of agriculturists will be less likely to be interfered with, and the control of amenities wanted by the town planning authorities could be equally strong, without being so strong that it would become a burden to those who have to provide them.

3.12 p.m.

Sir J. Lamb: I wish to support the Amendment, but I wish to make it quite clear that agriculturists, as a whole, are not against the proper planning of the countryside. I think it will be found that, in the past, those people who have done most in advocating the preservation of the rural beauties of the country have come from the country itself and not from the urban areas. It is not an object of this Amendment, nor is it my object in supporting it, to oppose good planning, but there may be very many cases where regulations made by the town planning authority may interfere with production. To-day, more than ever, the country is universal in its demand that there must be as much produced from the soil of this land as is practicable and possible. It would be regrettable if any action taken by a local planning authority were to interfere with that being achieved. We cannot, however, definitely say to-day that a farm is suitable for, or should be allotted to, one particular type of farming. They are constantly changing. A farm may change, because customs change, or, at the present time, the work of the farm may be changed considerably because of an order made by the Minister of Agriculture. A farm may have been only a grass farm, not requiring any buildings, but, if the Minister says it must be a farm for the production of milk there arises the necessity to provide the staff and buildings necessary for that type of farming. I would not be against temporary buildings, if they are not eyesores;


it does not necessarily mean that they should be ramshackle tin sheds.
I am not arguing about the type of building to be put up. What I am saying is that, where these changes take place and it is necessary to provide buildings, those buildings should be of a suitable character. It may be that the views of an authority on agriculture are not those of the Minister himself, and I think we are only asking for something which is just and in the interests of the community as a whole, and not merely in the interests of agriculture, when we ask that these proposals should be subject to consultation with the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture would be responsible in this House, and, consequently, we should have an opportunity of clearing up any difficulties that may arise here in this House, where, I think, a great deal of the work to be done by local authorities should be reviewed.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I hope the Minister will resist this Amendment. I am as anxious as anybody else that agriculture should be developed to the fullest possible extent, but I am also anxious that other forms of industry should be developed, and, if this Amendment is carried, there will be no reason why there should not have to be similar consultations with the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers.

Brigadier-Genera Clifton Brown: In the Bill the Minister of Transport is consulted about roads, and the Minister of Health about something else, so that it would be no innovation if the Minister of Agriculture were to be consulted.

Mr. Dugdale: Roads are public utilities. I still maintain that, if the Minister of Agriculture is to be consulted about private farms, the President of the Board of Trade should, equally well, be consulted about every factory before it is made to conform with good planning principles. I hope the Minister will persist in his demand that the rural districts, not less than the towns, should conform to good planning, and, if he does accept this Amendment he will undoubtedly find himself in great difficulty when he comes to plan the countryside.

3.17 p.m.

Mr. Turton: There seems to me to be a paradox in the argument of the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. J. Dugdale). The Minister of Agriculture, at present, has to say what buildings are suitable and should be erected for milk and dairy purposes. In all country districts the Minister has his representatives on the county war agricultural committees, who have to see whether the buildings on any farm are suitable for agriculture. That is not the position with the Board of Trade. Fortunately for them, industry, so far, has had far less control than agriculture, and it is to tidy up the position that my hon. Friend. has put down this Amendment. Surely it will not be in the interests of the community that one body, the war agricultural committee, should "vet" any buildings for one purpose and that another body, a planning authority, should "vet" buildings for another purpose. When this is regionalised and decentralised, what it comes down to is the local war agricultural committee, and, after the war, their successors, whoever they are. I suggest that this Amendment is of considerable importance to rural areas. It is not proposed in order to favour the erection of unsightly buildings in the country; it is to enable the farmer to say what type of building is suitable for agricultural purposes.

3.19 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I think the House will sympathise with the desire of agriculturists to see that they do not have imposed upon them ridiculous conditions in regard to the economic pursuit of their trade, but I think the Amendment imposes a handicap upon local planning authorities in the way of delay that is quite inexcusable. If hon. Members had asked that the Minister of Town and Country Planning should consult the Minister of Agriculture, which I am sure he will do, that would have seemed to me to be reasonable, but that the local planning authority, before it even submits its plan to the Ministry, must obtain the approval of the Minister of Agriculture will make cumbrous the whole proceedings under this Bill. I suggest to the Minister—I am sure he must realise it already—that we want to have these plans facilitated so that people can understand what is going to happen and have an opportunity to appeal to the Minister.


No Minister of Town and Country Planning, if he received an appeal from the farming community, would dare endorse a plan which would be an injustice. I therefore think it would be wise to withdraw the wording and leave it to the assurance of the Minister that their interests will be safeguarded.

3.20 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment, I have listened carefully, particularly to the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment. He said the town planning authority should consult the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, but the Amendment does not say anything about "consult." It says "obtain the approval" of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. That might be rather cumbersome and cause very great delay. An hon. Member who spoke later argued that the delay that would be caused by the Bill as it stands at present would be very great, but the delay would be much greater if the Amendment were adopted. There would have to be an approach to the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries through local representatives and there would be a lot of delay there. The county council of an area is competent to deal with the farmers. I have no doubt that the Minister of Town and Country Planning will consult the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on matters regarding farms within the area of the planning authority, but to say that before the planning authority can do anything to present a case it must first have the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries is a dangerous thing and one that I would not tolerate myself. As one living in a town and having to submit, and being willing to submit, to the conditions imposed on the towns, I see no reason why a privilege should be given to agricultural areas, which might undo the good work done in a neighbouring town.

3.24 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: Perhaps I had better reply to this Debate since I dealt with the same matter when it came before the House in Committee. I know that all my hon. and gallant Friends who represent rural constituencies and farmers desire exactly the same thing as I do in this matter. I can only attribute their action in putting down this Amendment to my

own incapacity when the Bill was in Committee, and if I really gave the appearance to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Brown) that I was adopting a rather Hitlerite attitude, I must indeed have failed. He was good enough, with his usual charm, to say that I got better as the afternoon proceeded. My hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Amendment and who had not the advantage of being here on the last occasion, has really got a quite incorrect view of the way in which this machinery works. Let me explain it again to the House. What we seek to do here is to remove an exception from planning control, the removal of which was recommended by the Scott Committee. Whatever may be thought of the Scott Committee and its Report, nobody has yet accused it of having a bias against the interests of agriculture, and nobody will. There are two main paragraphs in the Report dealing with that matter. There is paragraph 96 and paragraph 164, and it was to the latter that my hon. and gallant Friend was referring:
The present exemption granted to agricultural buildings is unsatisfactory. All buildings should come under review, but it is recognised that special criteria will need to be adopted in considering the suitability or otherwise of agricultural buildings from the amenity point of view. There need seldom, if ever, be any incompatibility between good appearance and utilitarian economy on the farm.
That view is shared by all my hon. and gallant Friends. I could not help remembering when my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was speaking that not long before the war I visited the beautiful constituency he so ably represents to address a meeting of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. I know this passionate affection with which the farming community regard the beauty of their countryside, and they desire that we should be in a position to stop some outrage perpetrated, perhaps, by someone who is alien to the traditions and does not share their love of their countryside.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newbury (Brigadier-General Clifton Brown) asked a question or two about the general interim development order and what control there would be over that order. Let me tell him at once that there is a statutory provision that that order has to be laid before this House.


It does not need an affirmative resolution, but there will be ample opportunity for my hon. and gallant Friend when the general interim development order, which I adumbrated on the last occasion, is made, to deal with it, if he feels that the working interests of the farm are neglected. After all, farming is a great industry. I could not agree more with what has been said on that subject on both sides of the House. If they regarded the order as unsatisfactory from the point of view of that great industry, I am certain that the very able representatives of agriculture in this House would make their comments known. We are not concerned to stop utilitarian buildings being put up. A utilitarian building can be of good design. I must not repeat what I said on the last occasion, but I wish that Members of the House would get rid of the absurd idea that good design or good architecture consists of some ornament added to a building when it is otherwise complete, to render it ridiculous in the mock Tudor or "Jerrybethan" manner. Every building can be of good design and I believe it is the desire of everybody in the House that these buildings should be of good design. I explained the machinery on the last occasion and that many buildings could be mentioned in the interim development order itself and could then be erected without any need to apply for a planning consent.

Colonel Clarke: Could things such as a small shed be put into the interim development order?

Mr. Strauss: Anything could be. I am not going into details now except to assure the House of what will be obvious, that when we are considering the Schedule for the interim development order we shall consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. Then my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) gave a description of a number of appeals, but it is much simpler than that. The moment the local planning authority, which is the interim development authority, has refused the application in those cases where application will have to be made, the applicant can appeal direct to my right hon. Friend without any intervening steps.
I hope I have conveyed to my hon. and gallant Friend a less unfriendly im-

pression on this occasion. I have purposely, in courtesy to him, in dealing with this Amendment gone into what I think has been in the minds of those who moved and supported it. I ought, perhaps, to add, though it may be untactful, that their Amendment is really meaningless, because it deals with a non-existing Order. The way the control works is not under the provisions of this Bill which we have been considering hitherto, but under the Acts of 1932 and 1943. The person who wishes to develop land can at once do such development as is permitted by the general interim development Order itself, and I repeat that that Order is laid before this House, although it is not the subject of an affirmative Resolution. The development could be, permitted by that Order itself, and in regard to buildings for agricultural use and especially such as might be required to be used for dealing with an emergency, I have little doubt that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will recommend to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning that there should be appropriate buildings scheduled to the Order itself. Where, however, the development is not permitted by the Order itself, and the local authority refuses permission for the development, then an appeal goes straight to my right hon. Friend. Where it was alleged that the refusal of the application would make impossible the efficient working of the farm, of course it would be necessary for my right hon. Friend, in dealing with that appeal, to consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Sir J. Lamb: He will be doing what we ask him to do.

Mr. Strauss: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb) that he will be doing what I am certain he, and others, intended to ask by this Amendment, which, for the reasons I have given, does not in fact carry out their intention. Several times in the course of this Bill it has been explained to the Committee, or the House, that we do not put into a Bill provisions for consultation between Ministers who are colleagues. Where another Minister has a statutory function, it may be done where his consent is required to make an act valid, but in the sort of case the supporters of this Amendment had in mind it would be bad constitutional practice to


mention the need for consultation. I hope I have dealt with most of the points in the minds of my hon. Friends, whose sincere sympathy with the cause of agriculture and the beauty of the countryside I know well, and I hope with the assurance I have given, they may see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 40.—(Preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

3.35 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 46, line 41, at end, insert:
Provided that as respects any building occupied by the owner as a residence a local authority shall not be entitled to make an order prohibiting the owner from altering or extending the building so far as may be reasonably necessary for the comfort or convenience of the owner and his family.
The object of this Amendment is to enable alterations which are reasonably necessary to be carried out. My quarrel with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is upon the wide interpretation of the word "buildings." As far as I can see, "buildings" can represent the Albert Memorial, Nelson's Column, even the statue of Genesis—which belongs to the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Bossom) and which can be described as an architectural or structural work—or it may be Farmer Giles's Elizabethan week-end cottage. The issues and the considerations really differ very considerably as to whether a thing is a statue, an immobile architectural or historical work, or whether it is a home in which somebody has to live. I do not see how you can draft Clauses and make all kinds of laws which apply to those different types of cases. In putting forward this Amendment I want to supplement the argument put forward so ably by my hon. Friend that homes have to be lived in as well as looked at. I suggest that my right hon. Friend might give this his sympathetic consideration, because it is much better for a home to be lived in than looked at, and it will be much better kept up than an empty shell where, if you pay 6d. to some good old lady who has finished a hard life's work, she will be good enough to show you where the ghost of Mr. X walks and the haunted moat and chamber. I think it will be 6d. but if it depends on the 1939 price—

Mr. McEntee: Perhaps the price of ghosts has gone up.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Well, 6d. plus 30 per cent. I really would suggest that we try to encourage people to occupy the homes. I am in earnest on this point because, if they are lived in, they will be better looked after than if they are just kept as museum pieces.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment.

3.38 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I have a great deal of sympathy, and I am sure everybody else has, with the general notion that so far as the bulk of these houses are concerned, it is better that they should be lived in. There are some houses of such special and peculiar interest that it is desirable for members of the public to have access to them at any time, but the bulk of houses which are worth preserving, and which we want to preserve, will be much better if people continue to use them as homes. However, that does not mean that this Amendment would improve the Bill. I hope I may convince my hon. Friends that this Amendment would really go too far and, indeed, might, to a large extent, defeat the purpose which we have in view, which is to use the statutory powers of the Bill to see that buildings of architectural beauty and interest shall not, as they have been in the most wholesale and wanton manner, either be destroyed or so marred by alterations as to have lost a large part of their beauty.
This Amendment suggests that the person who lives in one of these houses—and I have every sympathy with such a person—should have the power to make alterations as may be reasonably necessary for comfort or convenience. That raises, I should have thought, a very difficult question and one on which many different views might be held, and which would cover alterations that might ruin the beauty or the interest which we are seeking to preserve. Let me take an extreme case, which I simply put as an illustration, and which is not likely to arise. If one were living in a Norman keep, it would obviously be for one's comfort and convenience that those narrow slits through which the boiling oil or lead was poured should be expanded into proper windows. Obviously, nobody in the least intends that there should be power to enable a person to do that.
Let me take another example. There have been many cases in which big plain


glass shop windows have been inserted on the ground floors of lovely old Georgian houses. One or two streets in Bath have been ruined by that. That was obviously thought to be for the convenience of the people who lived there and who wanted to keep a shop. I think one is more likely to go into a shop which has no window these days, rather than into a shop which has, because one thinks that there will be more inside. At any rate, it was thought by those who wanted to start shops in Queen Anne or Georgian houses that the thing to do was to ruin their general appearance by putting plate glass windows on the ground floor. The appearance of these houses has been ruined by people taking out old panes which were an essential part of the design and putting in pieces of plain glass.
I think by what I have said, I have done enough to show that this Amendment would go too far. Under the present procedure is there an unreasonable block to repairs and alterations? In the first place the preservation order has to be approved by the Minister, who is required by Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, to consider representations made to him by the owner. The same right to make representations applies to any restrictions on alterations or extensions. The owner has the right of putting representations to the Ministry. When the order is enforced the owner can apply for consent to make alterations or extensions, or to have the order varied or regulated, and in the event of refusal he can appeal to the Minister. Where it is reasonable that certain alterations should be made in a proper manner to preserve the architectural features of the building and the local authority refuses—as is unlikely—then there is an appeal to the Minister. Further, an order under Section 17 which really diminishes the value carries with it compensation. In cases which my hon. Friend had in mind, that is to say, a habitable house which it is desirable should continue to be inhabited, I think the Amendment would go too far in that it would give people who have not a proper appreciation of these things unrestricted power which might lead to the ruin of what we want to preserve. I think the machinery under the Clause, read with the Act of 1932, is not unreasonable, and gives an owner who wants to alter fairly quick access to

have his representations considered by the Minister.
Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 40.—(Preservation of buildings of special architectural or historic interest.)

3.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 47, line 5, at end, insert:
(3) No person shall execute, or cause or permit to be executed, any work for the purpose of demolishing a building to which this Sub-section applies, that is to say, a building included in a list compiled or approved under the provisions of the Section (Designation of buildings of special architectural or historical interest) of this Act, not being a building as respects which an order under the said Section seventeen is for the time being in force or a building falling within Sub-section (3) of that Section (which relates to ancient monuments and certain other buildings), or for the purpose of altering or extending a building to which this Sub-section applies in any way which would seriously affect the character thereof, unless at least one month before the work is executed notice has been given to the local planning authority of the proposed demolition, alteration or extension:
Provided that nothing in this Sub-section shall sender unlawful the execution of any such work as aforesaid which is urgently necessary in the interests of safety or otherwise to deal with an unforeseen emergency, so long as notice is given as aforesaid as soon as may be after the necessity for the work arises.
The object of this Amendment is the protection of listed buildings against demolition or alteration or extension which would seriously affect their character, unless a month's notice has been given to the local planning authority. The Amendment avoids the danger, to which attention was drawn in Committee, of an owner despoiling a listed building before the local authority could take statutory action to safeguard it. With the object of this Amendment I am sure everyone will be in general agreement. As you have pointed out by your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there are certain other matters which might be taken into special account in Amendments which might be moved if you so called them.

3.47 P.m.

Mr. John Dugdale: I welcome this Amendment because I think it is vital to the preservation of our finest buildings. Earlier, the House agreed to certain lists being prepared, but those will be of no value whatever unless the Government and local authorities can have some information in advance as to whether a


building is likely to be destroyed. I would like to ask three questions. First, the Amendment says that information shall be given to the local planning authority. Would it not be wiser if that information was spread further, because there might be organisations, desirous of preserving good buildings, which might never hear about them? The local authority might keep the information to itself, although I do not say that that is likely. I am glad that the Solicitor-General—a great legal authority—has moved this Amendment, because I would like to ask him what is the legal interpretation of "seriously affect." I hope he will narrow it down so that we may know what it means. Thirdly, I would like to suggest that one month's notice is not enough. It seems very unfortunate that the procedure followed under the Ancient Monuments Act, 1931, when three months was the period required, has not been followed in this case. I suggest that it might be as well to alter the period from one month to three months, so as to bring it into conformity with the Ancient Monuments Act and give a local authority time to take action.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I also welcome this Amendment, and I would like to support what has been said by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale). I think it is essential that there should be publicity in this matter. As I said on a previous Amendment, publicity is part of our democratic process, and it is quite insufficient that the notice should be given to the local authority alone. I think provision should be made for publication in such manner as the Minister shall direct. I also support what my hon. Friend said about one month's notice. That is quite inadequate and I ask the Minister whether it is not a mistake, because the Ancient Monuments Act of 1931, which provided for three months, itself corrected a previous Act, that of 1913, which provided for one month. One month was found insufficient, and I wonder whether the Government did not overlook the amending Act. With regard to the notice, its form ought to be prescribed and it ought to be accompanied by scale plans. Such plans are essential, otherwise the owner may conceal his intentions from the local planning authority by a lot of words and the purpose he has in mind may be far from clear. I hope

all these points will be considered before the Bill is introduced in another place.

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I welcome the Amendment but I should like to ask a question. Though the Bill does not apply to Scotland, perhaps I may take an example from there as an illustration. A city like Edinburgh is a historical monument in many ways, as a whole, and its lay-out has been one of the examples to the world of town planning. Lothian Road was a great wide street with a beautiful vista. Some one has erected a cinema which blocks the view from one end to the other. The town council of that time seemed incapable of safeguarding the beauties of its own city. In a case like that, in any part of the country where a historical monument exists, does this Clause give the Minister power to prevent the erection of a building which will destroy the view of another historical building? Take St. Paul's for example. That will come under planning but, if it did not, would it be possible for the Minister to safeguard St. Paul's from being shut out from view by the erection of buildings if the local authority had not paid attention to its duties?

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: The Act of 1932, before a list of orders is made, gives the owners a chance of making representations against an order. Why has not that provision been made with regard to the formulation of this list? If a farmer, for instance, does not want his home to be on the list, he should have a chance to say the reason why.

Mr. Dugdale: On a point of Order. Have we not already considered this list and has it not been decided that it should be re-compiled?

Mr. Speaker: I thought the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking to his own Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I will not pursue the matter.

The Solicitor-General: With regard to the first point put by the hon. Member opposite, we are concerned here with the notice to the local planning authority by a person who is intending to make alterations. I find a little difficulty in appreciating the hon. Member's desire for further notice at that stage. I should have thought that in the vast majority of cases the local planning authority


would consult with a suitable body as to whether they approved or whether the alterations were in accordance with the class of buildings and the design that is generally found in that class. I will consider the point but I should like him to consider the other point of view whether that is not a function which we should all like to see local planning authorities wide awake and ready to perform. With regard to his second point, "seriously affecting" is a term which has no special legal connotation. It is a matter of fact which has to be judged in the circumstances of a particular case, but it rules out trivialities, and action would not have to be taken unless there was really something worth considering in the matter. I will certainly look into the question of one month or three months before the Bill is introduced in another place. The point raised by the hon. Member for Clackmannan and Eastern (Mr. Woodburn) is rather outside the scope of the present Clause, which simply deals with buildings. It will destroy a great many high hopes which we all have in planning if the situation that he envisages is not corrected and properly dealt with in future. I can only express my great sympathy and say that in my view it does not quite come under the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

3.59 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 47, line 5, after the words inserted, insert:
(3) No order shall be made under Section seventeen of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, as amended by this Section with respect to any building unless the local authority shall not less than two months before making application to the Minister for the order have given to the owner lessee and occupier of the building notice of their intention to make the application.
The object of this is to give notice of what the planning authority intends to do. We are dealing in this Bill with the homes of large numbers of people. We are preventing them from altering them and extending them, and we are also compulsorily acquiring them. It is, therefore, only reasonable that they should be given notice of what the planning authority intends to do. Before an order is made reasonable notice should be given to those people whose homes are being dealt with.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.0 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I cannot help feeling a certain sympathy with this Amendment and some of those that have preceded it, because the assumption seems to have been made in the Bill that the only vandals are private owners. In my experience local authorities are often even more guilty of vandalism, and it seems to me that buildings require protection not merely against private individuals, but very often against public corporations. I do not see anything in the Bill to protect a historic building which will be menaced by some kind of action of a public authority. Notice of the intention of a public authority, with the publicity which will attach to it, will be a safeguard in itself, but, as I said on an earlier Amendment, I wish there were some power of appeal to some tribunal or to the Minister when the future of valuable and historic buildings and monuments is possibly jeopardised.

4.2 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It would be convenient, I think, if the House appreciated the present position and compared it with the position which my hon. and gallant Friend suggests. Under the Regulations now in force, the local authority must give notice by advertisement of the submission to the Minister for his approval of a preservation order under Section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, and, in addition, must serve a copy of the order on the owner and occupier of the building giving them 14 days in which to make any objections or representations to the Minister. That seems, in our view, a reasonable method of doing it. My hon. and gallant Friend suggests that before the local authority makes its submission it ought to give two months' notice to the owner. That would mean, in the case of either a deliberate vandal or a person who says, "I am going to do what I like with my own, whatever be the general opinion," that if he gets two months before the application is made to the Minister, he will be given full time to do all the harm he likes and in that way undo all the good which our proposals bring about. I appreciate the anxiety of my hon. Friends and the care they have given to these provisions, but I ask them to regard the matter from that point of view. I advise the House that it is wrong to press for a notice before submission is made to the Minister.


We have had no complaints of the 14 days after submission not being sufficient.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 47, line 9, leave out "he," and insert:
or if any person contravenes the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section, the said owner or person as the case may be".—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

4.5 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I beg to move, in page 47, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).
The point in this Amendment is of some substance. I may be a lone voice crying in the wilderness, but I shall continue to cry. Under the 1932 Act powers were taken to prevent buildings of historic or architectural interest being destroyed. The powers which are being taken here will enable the planning authority compulsorily to acquire other people's homes. That is a large increase of power and there should be proper safeguards to make sure that it will be exercised with care. To say that if a local planning authority considers that a home is not being maintained properly it can purchase it is to give wide and sweeping powers which should not be given. I can imagine many instances where grave injustice could be done. At the present moment an owner can spend only £10 on a building, and, therefore, under this Bill, every home could be acquired because it cannot be maintained. The powers under this Bill will enable the planning authority to say to an owner, "You are unable to maintain your home, in our opinion, and, therefore, we are going compulsorily to acquire it." I could give a good many instances. I am not one of those who has inherited a home which may have been in the family for hundreds of years, nor am I a yeoman or a member of one of the old families of England. I can imagine grave injustice being done if a local authority were able to say that if the owner is unable to maintain his ancestral home it will be compulsorily acquired. I want to see the homes maintained, but this is not the right way to go about it. If we want a home maintained somebody has to live in it. All the rules and regulations in the world will not equal the pride which a person has in his own home. I suggest that these powers should be considerably amended to cover the cases I have mentioned.

Sir J. Mellor: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.10 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I rise simply in order to ask my right hon. Friend a question. I would not go so far as to support the Amendment, but I think it is important to protect private owners and individuals against arbitrary use of executive power. It is a point which has arisen again and again in recent legislation. I would ask my right hon. Friend to say whether, anywhere in the Bill, there is a right of appeal against arbitrary executive action in the case of owners or other private individuals who consider themselves to have been unfairly treated. His answer will govern very much my attitude towards the Amendment.

4.11 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The mover of the Amendment did not put up as good a case as I was expecting. We have known of many cases of houses not being properly used and nobody has had the power to deal with those cases. Surely a local authority which has to come before the electorate should have some idea of what is good for the community, and the Minister is answerable to the House of Commons for whatever he does. I think the Clause is admirable and should have been law long ago. As to old families with historic dwellings being able to do what they like, that is outside this question. As to those old families, who have passed the period of their usefulness and have got historic dwellings—perhaps built upon what their ancestors did in the Wars of the Roses, and who have to keep them going because of that old tradition—it is about time they were cleared out. I say, Clear them out, and make the buildings of some use to the public.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: I fail to see anything about ancestral homes in these proposals. The mover of the Amendment had great difficulty, I thought, in finding illustrations to back up his argument and he seemed to get stuck on the point of the ancestral home.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: I did not find any shortage of illustrations but I said that nearly all the homes in England would come under these proposals, because, under the £10 rule, you cannot maintain them.

Mr. Woodburn: Buildings may be something other than homes. There is a double check here. The local authority and the Minister are a check on each other. During the war county agricultural committees have been given authority to take over farms and put farmers out where they thought farms were not being properly used, and on the whole there have been remarkably few complaints of that application of the principle of public welfare over personal welfare. In the provision that the hon. and gallant Member wishes to leave out there is power to deal with the building which may be in the midst of a planning area and may be a disadvantage to all the other buildings in the vicinity. For the protection of all the rest of the community it should be necessary to have power to deal with such a building as that. So far as I can see, the safeguards are far greater than those of the farmers under the agricultural committee regulations, and in the long run the Minister is responsible to this House.

4.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It will be doing no injustice to the mover of the Amendment to say that he is completely opposed to compulsory acquisition in this field altogether. That is how I understood it.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: No, Sir, but I say there are occasions which are an exception.

The Solicitor-General: I am very grateful to him, and I am sorry if I misunderstood him. On the question of compulsory acquisition we are only going as far as to say that it should be the last resort and where there is no other means by which the preservation of a building of architectural or historic interest can be obtained. There cannot logically be any difference between my hon. and gallant Friend and myself on the general position. His special point concerned people who are prevented by the limit of expenditure allowed by the Government or by temporary financial embarrassment of their own. I think that summarises his point. We are meeting it as far as we can, on the premise that you must have power in the last resort, by an Amendment which will be moved, and which substitutes the future for the actual capability at the present.
I come to the point which the hon. Member for Altrincham (Sir E. Grigg)

made. I sympathise very much with the scrutiny which he always gives to these provisions. Here we have the safeguard that the Minister's approval of compulsory purchase is necessary, and it would not be given unless the circumstances warranted it. There is then the local authority, and then again you have the Minister. I know that that is not quite enough for my hon. Friend. He and I have been engaged in discussions on similar subject matter in other connections. I would like to point out to him that with regard, say, to interim development, we have had the procedure of appeal from the planning authority to the Minister working for a long period of years. I have taken part for private interests in many of those appeals and I have not found that the method, of which my hon. Friend is rightly critical because it is an administrative method, resulted either in injustice or, which is more important, in it being the subject of general attack on the ground of injustice. I can only say that while I have great sympathy, and will always be prepared to consider my hon. Friend's attitude that Ministerial authority must be tempered to the individual, we are entitled on experience to rely on the Ministerial check in this case.

4.19 p.m.

Sir E. Grigg: I can only say one word with the permission of the House. I do not wish it to appear that my anxiety in this matter of appeal is based purely on the proprietor's interest or financial interest. It may very well be an attempt to protect valuable historical buildings against an act of vandalism by an authority just as much as by a private individual. I do not trust—and I am sure many hon. Members agree with me—local authorities or Ministers on these matters. Ministers have been guilty of great vandalism in the course of the history of this Parliament. Therefore I hope that the point will not escape the attention of the Miniser.
Amendment negatived.

4.20 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 47, line 31, leave out "it is not being properly maintained," and insert:
reasonable steps required for properly maintaining the building will not be taken unless the powers of this paragraph are exercised.
I have already mentioned in my speech on the previous Amendment the purpose


of this one. Therefore, I will not detain the House now.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to say whether this means that the owner of the house will be given a reasonable time in which to maintain it?

Mr. H. Strauss: I think what is reasonable must depend a little on what is the condition of the house. The overriding condition must be its preservation. I cannot take the matter further than this. If the condition of the house is such that the owner can have time, well and good, but the test is, Will the reasonable and proper steps be taken in sufficient time to save the house if this Clause is not put into operation?
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 46.—(Power of entry for purposes of survey and valuation.)

4.22 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 51, line 19, leave out from beginning to "a," in line zo, and insert "Where a Minister or."
This and the six following Amendments deal with points which were raised, I think in particular by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Kensington (Captain Duncan) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Peters-field. (Sir G. Jeffreys). The point is not an unfamiliar one. It is the question of whether there ought not to be certain safeguards and restrictions with regard to the right of entry of officials into people's houses in order to make the necessary inspections. We have met this problem in this context to the satisfaction of the House, by providing that the Valuation Officer may be authorised, and by providing that he should produce an authorisation if required. Also, I think it is very reasonable that entry cannot be claimed as a right unless 24 hours' notice be given. The family might be out, there might be some small girl in charge, and she might not know what to do. If he wants to enter as a right he must give 24 hours' notice. I think the words speak for themselves.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made:
In page 51, line 20, leave out from "authority," to "authorised," in line 22, and insert "is or are."
In line 22, after "purchase," insert "any land."
In line 23, leave out from "Act," to "for," in line 24, and insert:
or has or have under consideration the purchase of any land as aforesaid, an officer of the Valuation Office or any person authorised in writing by the said Minister or authority may at all reasonable times, on producing, if so required, evidence of his authority in that behalf, enter on the land.
In line 26, leave out "other," and insert "any."
In line 27, after "may," insert:
at all reasonable times, on producing, if so required, evidence of his authority in that behalf.
In line 30, at end, insert:
(3) Notwithstanding anything in the preceding Sub-sections, admission shall not be demanded as of right to any land which is occupied, unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier."—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 47.—(Provisions as to local inquiries.)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I beg to move, in page 51, line 35, at beginning, insert:
(1) For the purposes of the execution of his powers and duties under this Act, a Minister may cause to be held such local inquiries as are directed by this Act and such other local inquiries as he may think fit.
This is to clarify the position. Clause 47 as it is drafted applies Sub-sections (2) to (5) of Section 290 of the Local Government Act, 1933, which is the standard code governing local inquiries, but it does not apply or adapt Sub-section (1) of that Section. Although the power might reasonably be inferred, it is better to make it clear on the face of the Statute.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 52.—(Interpretation.)

4.27 p.m.

Amendment made: In page 54, line 40, leave out "Department," and insert "Minister."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 55, line 4, at end, insert:
'first local advertisement' means in relation to the publication of a notice as respects any land, the first publication of the notice in a newspaper circulating in the locality where the land is situated, and includes, in relation to a notice so published once only, the publication thereof;".
This is an addition to the Interpretation Clause, and is consequential on a series of Amendments providing for a minimum period of 28 days in which objection may


be made in respect of an advertisement of a Clause 1 Order, of a compulsory purchase Order. The definition is necessary because the dates of publication of the "London Gazette" and various local newspapers may not be the same.
Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for authorising compulsory purchase.)

Amendment made: In page 58, line 42, after "time," insert "(not being less than twenty-eight days from the first local advertisement)."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Orders of the Day — THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for authorising compulsory purchase of statutory undertakers' land.)

Amendments made: In page 61, line 2, leave out "Department," and insert "Minister."

In line 9, after "time," insert:
Not being less than twenty-eight days for the service of the notice."—[The Solicitor-General.]
Consequential Amendments made.

Orders of the Day — FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Assessment of compensation to statutory undertakers.)

Amendments made: In page 62, line 41, leave out "Department," and insert "Minister."

In page 63, line 23, leave out "purchase or other."

Consequential Amendments made.

In page 64, line 8, leave out "as there-in mentioned," and insert "to the adjustment."—[The Solicitor-General.]

4.28 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 64, line 9, at end, insert:
and by any further amount which appears to the tribunal to be appropriate having regard to any increase in the capital value of immovable property belonging to the person carrying on the statutory undertaking in question which is directly attributable to any such adjustment as aforesaid, allowance being made for any reduction made under head (b) of this sub-paragraph.
This is an Amendment which, though not strictly a drafting Amendment, does meet a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Peckham (Mr. Silkin) on the Committee stage. The proposals which he made have been followed, and these Amendments are the result of the re-examination of the problem, and the method suggested.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 64, line 16, at end, insert:
(4) In this paragraph the expression 'proceeding giving rise to compensation' means the particular action (that is to say, purchase, extinguishment of a right, imposition of a requirement, refusal of permission, grant of permission subject to conditions, or revocation or modification of permission) in respect of which compensation falls to be assessed, as distinct from any development or project in connection with which the action in question may have been taken."—[The Solicitor-General.]
Consequential Amendments made.

Orders of the Day — FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Modifications of Lands Clauses Acts and Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, for purposes of Part 1.)

Amendments made:

In page 66, line 30, at end, insert:
being a purchase of land as respects which the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to this Act apply to the order."—[The Solicitor-General.]
Consequential Amendment made.

Orders of the Day — SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Procedure for completion of compulsory purchase under orders providing for expedited completion.)

Amendments made:

In page 72, line 14, after "Where," insert "the land designated by."

In page 73, line 17, after "completion," insert:
being a purchase of an interest in respect of which a notice to treat is deemed to have been served by virtue of this Schedule.

In line 25, after "any," insert "of the."

In page 74, line 5, after "any," insert "of the."

In line 27, at end, add:
(2) In the case of an order providing for expedited completion to which the provisions of this Schedule apply as respects part only of the land designated by the order, references in this Schedule to the land so designated shall be construed as references to that part thereof."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COAL INDUSTRY (RECRUITMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Pym.]

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I wish to take this opportunity of raising a matter which relates to a Question I had on the Order


Paper last July. It is the question of recruitment into the mines. I asked the Minister of Fuel and Power:
if he is aware that there is a falling off of boys from mining families going into the mines; and will he take steps to get the views of parents as to the cause of this so that remedies can be found to meet it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th July, 1944; Vol. 402, c. 579.]
The Minister replied that they were examining the matter, and were doing what they could; but I felt that that was not sufficient, because this was a matter on which the country ought to be aware of what was actually happening. We are constantly being told that there is a falling off in coal supplies, and I do not think anybody has got to the real reason. My belief is that it is due to there being insufficient man-power in the mines. This matter has to be dealt with if the coal is to be produced. The two main points I wish to deal with are the wastage in manpower in the mines, and the inflow of recruits to replace that wastage.
I would like to refer to the Statistical Digest issued by the Ministry of Fuel and Power. This is perhaps one of the most important documents that we have ever had about the mining industry. Everybody welcomes it, because it gives a real insight into what is happening. That digest covers two complete years. It shows that the number of deaths, whether accidental or natural, in the industry in that period was 6,667. The number of men who retired from gainful work was 5,723. Here is another sad commentary on the mining industry: the number of men injured, over and above the number already on the colliery books, in those two years was 43,705. The number of men going out of the industry for other causes, which cannot be specifically given, was over 15,000. The wastage in the industry amounted to 71,414. That is a tremendous figure for two years. How are we to meet that wastage? Juvenile recruitment, which is supposed to be the only channel to replace the loss, amounted to 24,768. That leaves a deficiency of 46,646. It will be seen what a tremendous number has to be replaced. Parliament has recognised this. According to the digest, abnormal recruitment, including men returning from His Majesty's Forces or from other industries, volunteers, optants, and ballotees, have brought into the mines 49,957. With all this abnormal entry into the mines,

we still have a deficiency in the two years of 689 people, which will result in a serious state of affairs unless we can somehow meet it.
When the war ends a number of men now in the Forces will naturally turn to the mines, but they will be men well on in life, aged 30 or over, who cannot last very long. For a time we shall have the mining industry built up by these men returning from the Forces. I want to put the position of the Bevin boys—the official term for them is ballotees, but everybody knows them as the Bevin boys. According to the figures I got yesterday, 24,400 of them are working underground. I have interviewed many of these ballotees, to find out whether they are likely to stay in the pit. Not one of those I have talked to says that he is going to stay. They all say that as soon as they are free they are going to follow some other occupation. I prophesy that not more than two per cent. of the Bevin boys will remain in the mines when they are free to go. So we shall get only about 500 remaining in the mines, out of the figures I have mentioned. Where are the men to come from to carry on the mining industry?
There are remarkable statistics in this Digest. They show that in 1940 29,600 boys under 16 entered the mines, and that in 1943 the corresponding number was 18,200. In those three years there was a falling off of 11,400, or 39 per cent. These boys are from mining families. We have to ask ourselves why they are not going into the mines now. The mining industry was good enough for the fathers: why is it not good enough for the sons? I can tell that from personal experience. Parents who have experienced conditions in the mines, the accidents that happen, the hardships that have to be undergone, say, "If my lad can get a job anywhere else he is not going into the pit." Ask the parents in any mining village why their lads have not gone to the pit. Without any hesitation they will say, "Unless I am driven by economic necessity, I shall not let my lad go into the pit." That is not found merely in Yorkshire or in Lancashire: you will find it wherever you go. Many of the miners' leaders are trade union officials or Members of Parliament, or have some other corresponding position. There may be an exception here and there in the case of someone who has


a particular job, but otherwise no one wants his lad to go into the pit if he can get some other job. Though such men have represented the miners and been fighting for them, their lads are not going into the pit because they know the dangers and the physical conditions.
I have tried to find out myself what is the reason, by going round and asking people, and one of the men to whom I spoke, a man who is chairman of the district council, who has three sons and is a working miner, told me that none of his sons worked in the pit. When the youngest one became of military age, the father told me that he had said to his son "You will have to go in the Army or into the pit; are you going in the pit?" The son had replied "I am not going into the pit after what I have seen you undergo. I am prepared to go into the Army if I get the chance." That is taking place in the mining industry all the way through. Last night, I met a friend of mine who used to serve on the Wages Board in Manchester, whom I had not met for many years. He reminded me of the time when he was in Manchester, when he worked in a big colliery, and he told me that not one of his contemporaries who worked alongside him in the pit had their sons working in the pit. This is from North Staffordshire, and it is an indication of what is happening all over.
That is the position wherever you go. The young lads are not going into the collieries, and, unless something is done, inevitably, the coal industry will come to a standstill. It is no use us saying we want coal and that coal is necessary for the nation, unless we do something to make it worth while for these lads to go into the pit. I do not want hon. Members to think that, because their fathers have been miners, there is going to be a natural flow into the mines from these families. It has stopped and the nation has to find out what can be done about it. Unless we can make the mining industry attractive enough to get these lads into the pits, the whole thing will stop of itself.
Therefore, I felt it my duty, combined with a desire to make conditions for miners better, to let the nation know what is happening and to draw attention to this matter and bring figures. There is the in escapable fact of what is happening, and

it is now up to Parliament and the country to devise some means by which this situation can be rectified. Yesterday, I listened to the hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), who asked for a long-term policy for the Welsh coal industry and said that coat was one of the important factors in Wales. The hon. Lady did not realise that, unless we can get the miners to produce the coal, then the whole thing comes to a deadlock. Yesterday, also, I had a question to the Minister of Fuel and Power as to whether there are any other means of getting coal, and, particularly, about the Russian method of extracting the power from coal without going below ground to get it. This is not mature yet, and, until it does come about, we shall require to get the coal by present methods. How are we going to get it? It will have to be by way of an inducement to these young men to take up mining, and that is the serious problem to be solved.
The reason why young men are not going into the mines is that they cannot see any hope for the future there. Neither can I, and if I had my chance again, after what I have gone through, I should think twice before I went into the mines. I am suggesting certain methods by which this problem ought to be tackled. First of all, I suggest a comprehensive committee of leading men and women to examine this question thoroughly and exhaustively by going to the mining communities and talking to the parents and asking them why their lads are not going into the pit. They should find out what is behind it all and try to get to the bottom of it. I am satisfied that if they do go, and get to know what is happening, they will realise at once that something must be done to remedy this situation.
When all that has been done, I suggest that whatever safety methods are required, regardless of expense, ought to be put into operation. Many times we have known that the safety of the miners could have been secured if it had not been for questions of profit. Every piece worker knows that, when there is gas in the mine, it is a deadly thing, and that when it gets to two and a half per cent. there is danger looming ahead. He also knows that, many times, it has been ignored because the fireman has not reported it because it would have meant losing his job. Many times, not only when the question of gas was involved, but when other safety methods should have been effected, this


question of profit came up. I suggest that, whatever safety methods are necessary for the welfare of the mine workers, they ought to be put into use regardless of the cost, because the price we pay in death and accident is enormous, and that constitutes one of the reasons why there is not a lot of young lads going into the pits to-day. Every day, the mother is thinking whether her lad will return safe and sound or come back maimed, and, in every colliery village you will find dwarfed limbs as a result of men having had legs broken, which have not completely set or recovered. These things have to be removed if we are to get more workers.
The second thing which I suggest is that we have to make conditions in the mines comparable with those in other occupations. We cannot overcome the drabness and the hardship of the mines, and their danger to the men, but we can compensate them in other ways. I would say that we should offer them a much shorter working day and a shorter working week, to equalise them with those in other industries. We should say to the young miner, "We know it is very hard for you, and, therefore, to compensate you, we will give you a shorter working week."

Sir Granville Gibson: Will my hon. Friend give the House information as to what hours are worked, because he has referred to hours comparable with other industries?

Mr. Tinker: They are working seven and a half hours now, but that is not all. Everybody conversant with the shift system knows that they cannot all go into the mine at once, as in a factory. The average man does seven and a half hours a day, but for the extreme man, who goes down first and comes up last, it is eight and a half hours a day.
It is not just the length of time it takes but the hardships they have to undergo in getting to and from their work. There are long underground roads, sometimes a mile in length. I saw in the paper that yesterday the Duchess of Kent went down a mine a mile underground. I thought, though I did not want anything to happen to the lady, that the best thing would have been to let her walk to the far end. I believe she was conveyed to the face. When people go down the pit they should not have everything prepared

for them but should go as the ordinary miner goes and then they would realise what he has to go through. These things have to be examined if we are to get young miners to go down the pit. We have done very well at the present time in regard to pay. We have risen from the 81st position to the 21st position with regard to rates of pay, but I shall not be satisfied until the miner is No. 1. He ought to be in that position and unless he is we shall not get sufficient miners.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: Does the hon. Member really contend that the figure of 21 has any relation to the present position? He must know that the miners passed it a long time ago and that the industry is either second or third on the whole list of wage earners.

Mr. Tinker: The figure was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) in a previous Debate, and I do not dispute the figure of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I am only too glad to accept it. There is no doubt that the position has got much better. In "The Times" to-day Robert Foot, Chairman of the Mining Association of Great Britain, has been surveying the mining field. He says:
As part of its plans for such an approach to the solution of the problems of the industry, both old and new, the Mining Association invited me to become its chairman and survey the whole position. Having completed that survey, I am now engaged, again at the invitation of the Mining Association, in the preparation of proposals, and any plan which I may submit will include stability and a good standard of life for labour in exchange for good work; security and an adequate reward for capital in return for enterprise and efficiency; and, consistently with these essential conditions, fair treatment for the consumer and close regard to his requirements as regards supplies, price, and service.
It is very nice to write like that, but I hope that he will see that those who give their labour in the mine shall receive an adequate return for what they do. If he is going to get profits for private enterprise, make the conditions of mining what they ought to be, and give the consumers cheap coal—

Sir G. Gibson: I can assure the hon. Member that to-day I am paying 44s. per ton for coal for which I paid 12s. 11d. at the beginning of the last war.

Mr. Tinker: I would say that before we talk about cheap coal, we should take away profits of mine owners, and if they cannot make profit we should tell them


to get out of it. Whether it means cheap coal or not, the first essential is for the men working in the mines to have a decent standard of life, and the public will have to pay for it.

Sir G. Gibson: They are paying for it.

Mr. Tinker: If coal supply becomes shorter, we shall be begging of the men to go into the mines, and I have heard it said that if it gets to be £1 an ounce some of them will not go down the pit to get it, and I believe that. The essential thing to do in order to get workers into the mine is to give them conditions equal to those obtained in other industries. We shall have to weigh up the dangers and hardships and try to compensate them. Unless we do, the nation will be faced with a crisis. I hope and trust that while the war is on we shall get supplies of coal, as we must concentrate on winning the war. When the war is over if fair conditions are not given to the miner and he is not made worthy of his hire I shall not mind what happens. I shall fight for all I am worth to try to get conditions for him equal to those in other industries. I hope that Parliament will realise what is happening in the mining industry. It is no use crying out for More coal unless we are prepared to give a decent standard of life to the men who get the coal. Do not expect the miners to send their children there otherwise. It will be the fault of Parliament for not having dealt with it properly.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: The question before the House can be summed up under one heading. Can this House with the assistance of the coal owners make the mining industry sufficiently attractive? It is a very serious matter and is worth more consideration than is indicated by cheap interjections about paying for the coal which the miner uses. I want to support the contention put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). When debates or discussions on the mining, industry are introduced we on these benches are accused of not being sufficiently interested in the industry we represent. No man can accuse mining Members of not being interested in the industry which they represent. One of the mistakes made in our consideration of mining matters is the fact that there are so many people on the opposite side—and

I say this with respect—who do not take any notice of the advice given to them from these benches.
I want to go further back than my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh, because I hold the opinion very strongly that the rot in the mining industry set in, not in 1938 or 1930, but as far back as 1922. Despite all the pleadings from these benches and in the country, even to Cabinet Ministers, we could not get the authorities to see eye to eye with us, and the mining industry slid down the slippery slope, from which it has not recovered since, and particularly so in regard to juvenile labour. It is very interesting to note—and here I want to pay a compliment to the Mines Department for the Statistical Digest from which these figures have been extracted—that in 1920 there were 533,605 boys under the age of 16 employed in the mines of this country. I would remind the House that it was from 1920 to 1922 that wage rates went down in the mining industry, and in 1938 the number of boys had fallen to 27,600. In 1943 boys under the age of 16 employed in the mining industry numbered only 18,200.
I want to refer to another aspect. I have been examining some figures regarding the entrants for technical work in the mines. Fortunately or unfortunately I have been for a long number of years a governor of one of the leading mining colleges in the North of England, the Wigan Mining and Technical College, which is of world-wide renown from a technical point of view. I find that the enrolments in 1920–1921 for full time were 91, and for other time—that is part-time, Saturday morning and evening—623. That was at a time when there were large numbers of young men working in the mining industry. To-day I find that the entrants for full-time technical education in mining subjects have fallen from 91 in 1920–21 to 4 last year. The total number of enrolments at that college in 1920–1921 was 623 and this year they have fallen to 214. It is significant to note that the fall in the figures of boys and young men employed in the mines has also resulted in a falling of the figures for technical education.
There is an important point with regard to the mechanical side of mining which must be borne in mind. So long as the Mines Department keeps before them as


their first essential the safety of the men, I do not care how much machinery they introduce, because every time it reduces the manual labour of the men in the pits. From the statistical digest I find that out of the 25 districts into which the country is split there are six districts where over go per cent. of the pits are producing coal cut by machine. There are five districts out of the 25 where over 90 per cent. of the pits are producing coal conveyed by mechanical conveyors. There are 12 districts where over 60 per cent. of the pits are producing coal cut by machinery. There are nine districts where 60 per cent. of the pits are producing coal conveyed by mechanical conveyors. On an average 67 per cent. of the coal produced in England and Wales is cut by coal-cutting machines. In Scotland it has reached the high figure of 82 per cent. Sixty-seven per cent. of the coal produced in England and Wales is by mechanical conveyors and 66 per cent. of the coal produced in Scotland is by mechanical conveyors.
Therefore I come to this point, that what we have to do in order to ensure the production of coal in the future is to have more technicians and more engineers in addition to more manual workers at the coal face. There are three grades upon which we have to concentrate. First it is essential to have more coal-face workers; secondly, it is essential that we have highly qualified technicians and highly qualified engineers. How are we to get them? Are there any in this House or outside, whether they be engineers at the pit or in the munition factories, who can say that the engineering skill of our men has been rewarded by the wages they have been paid? The highly qualified engineer has never been paid the amount of money to which he has been entitled. The old idea of "like father like son" has now gone by the board and we have to do something, if this industry of ours is to maintain the position it occupied many years ago, to make it attractive. To cut out the drabness, to cut out the darkness is an impossibility, but I do say with all seriousness that a lot can be done to ease the burdens of those who are working in the pits, and particularly the young life.
Let us examine for a moment the change in the working conditions underground which has been brought about by

intensified mechanisation. When I worked in the pit as a lasher-on in my early days, I was responsible for the supply of tubs for four men. It was a comparatively easy job but now, in highly intensified mechanised mines, the lasher-on is responsible for the supply of tubs for 100 or 200 men. Whereas he used to handle perhaps 40 or 50 and up to 100 boxes, in many pits to-day he is handling between 400 and 600 tubs per day. Another change is that the boxes used now are a tremendous weight, and as a result of the change from 7 cwt. to 15 cwt. and 21 cwt. young men of 16 to 18 have great difficulty in handling them.
All these factors will have to be taken into consideration if we are to attract young men to the mining industry. How are we going to do it? A lot has been said about wages. Be it remembered that the Porter award, which gave concessions to a lot of our men, did not give any concessions to those for whom we intended it. First we have to apply our minds to the wages of the young men we want to get into the pits, and secondly, to the hours of labour they have to work. Above all, and this transcends everything, we shall have to pay greater regard to the conditions under which our young men have to work in the pits. I welcome the idea of the hon. Member for Leigh that if we are to win back the position we occupied as an industry and get the production of the coal which the nation needs, we shall have to be more serious in our approach to the small matters in the pits. As I have said before in this Chamber, it is not here that coal is produced, it is at the pits, and it is to the pits that we want to attract the men.
Another point is that at present mine managers, who have been appointed by Statute, have not the scope that they had hitherto. In bygone days they knew every one of their workpeople, and their workpeople knew them. One of the most successful coal-producing counties is Leicestershire, and one of the reasons is that there are small companies there, as against the large combines and mergers which we have in other parts of the country. I hope the seriousness of the situation in regard to new entrants will command the attention not only of the Minister but of ail those who have the future of this industry at heart.

5.11 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I do not propose to take up the time of the House for more than a few minutes, but I think it is appropriate that a few words should be said on this matter from this side. We are grateful to the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) and the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) for having raised this most important subject, on which they have brought to bear a wealth of knowledge and a helpful attitude to the problem which faces the mining industry. But I think that the hon. Member for Leigh let his enthusiasm for his cause run away with him slightly, because some of his figures will not bear too close an examination. Eight months ago we had an Adjournment Debate in this House on the question of Bevin boys and three months ago I had occasion to refer to this matter again on the occasion of the Coal Debate when I stated that the number who had opted to remain in the industry when the war was over was about 40 per cent. Now I have to make a slight variation of that figure, and I will explain why. The figure I gave on that occasion referred to both optants and Bevin boys, and was 40 per cent. in a particular pit which was employing about 400 optants and Bevin boys. I had the figures brought up to date as late as yesterday and they now refer to 500 boys, of whom' rather more are Bevin boys than optants. Of the Bevin boys 22 to 25 per cent. have opted to stay on after the war, and of the optants 50 per cent. have opted to stay on, giving a mean figure of about 37 per cent. I am quite prepared to believe that some of these will not stay on, but I suggest to the House that the figure of one per cent. or two per cent., which has been stated as being the figure for those who will remain in the industry, will not stand looking into.

Mr. George Griffiths: Has the hon. and gallant Member interviewed any of these boys? I have run up against scores of them, and they all swear that they will not stop in a pit one hour after the war is over.

Mr. Glanville: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that as recently as Monday night I interviewed nearly 400 of these lads, and not a single one was prepared to stay on? They are prepared to do their duty so far as they

can during the war, but they will not stay afterwards.

Mr. Tinker: That is what we all find.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I have interviewed a great number of these boys. I have been underground and seen them at work and followed carefully their scheme of training.

Mr. Glanville: What are they doing?

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: I am not going to be drawn aside from my argument. They are undertaking a specific scheme of training in regard to the whole operation of coal mining. Forty per cent. of them are producing coal at a rate consistent with the rate I suggested eight months ago, when this matter was first mooted in the House. What I am saying is that I do not think experience bears out the statement that such a small percentage as was stated by the hon. Member for Leigh will stay on after the war. I think a greater percentage will. But that does not get away from the general proposition that if we are to be satisfied with recruitment to the industry we shall have to do a number of things which will make the industry not only satisfactory to the boys themselves but also to their parents, because parents must be satisfied with what their boys are doing at that stage of their lives. Recruitment to the industry was nearly constant for about seven years before the war. If one refers to the Statistical Digest it will be seen that in 1939 recruitment was slightly better than in 1938. But that is not, possibly, as important as the general proposition that if recruitment after the war is to be satisfactory the conditions of the industry must be such as will induce boys and their parents to look upon mining as a suitable calling. The hon. Member for Leigh and the hon. Member for Ince made certain suggestions which I do not wish to elaborate now, except to say that I do not think that the question of hours per day is as important as the question of a standard week—if possible, a standard five-day week.
Bound up with this is the question of vocational, technical, managerial and educational training, which should receive the immediate and earnest attention of the Government. The Forster Committee has made a comprehensive survey in connection with this matter and this affords me the occasion to advocate that the recommendations of that Committee should be borne out as fully as is con-


sistent with opportunity. There is hardly a recommendation made by that Committee which is not wise and sound and which, in the interests of the boys themselves, the industry in general and the nation in particular, should not be enforced at the earliest possible moment.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Glanville: For 41 years I worked in the coal mines. I started at the age of 12. Never in my life did I have the pleasure of working beside any one of the hon. Members who occupy the opposite benches. I am exceedingly interested in their suggestions for solving the problem of recruitment in the mining industry. My hon. Friends have not mentioned that in 1920 Mr. Justice Sankey's Commission recommended a six-hour day for the miners. In 1920 productivity through machine production was not so rich as it is at this moment. Mr. Justice Sankey recommended that, if the then output could be kept up, within 12 months the miners would be able to secure the six-hour day. When I was a boy, and before I was a boy, we were hewing in the Durham coal fields for a six-hour day. When I was a lad we had two shifts. The first went down at four and came up at 11, the other went down from 10 till four o'clock. The pit that I worked in was not mechanised. The hours and conditions of all the men have gradually been worsened. We have a position to-day where every man and boy in the coal mine is working, not seven and a half hours but seven and a half hours plus one winding time. Before hon. Members opposite criticise the conditions under which miners are working I would respectfully ask them to make themselves conversant with the facts, because apparently they are not. I have told my son from his childhood that, if it is possible, he will never go down a mine, I would sooner bury him as a little boy. Hon. Members may smile, but I speak from the bottom of my heart, from a rough school of experience, and not through the academic reading of statistics. I have worked in it, and lived in it, and I know what I am talking about.
We shall never recruit boys into the mining industry so long as the mines are worked for private profit. We speak here glibly of the introduction of machinery, but what happened with the introduction of machinery was the dis-

placement of man-power and the flinging on to the roads of hundreds of thousands of miners who were no longer required. We were locked out in 1921 for one reason only, that the Government refused to implement the findings of the Sankey Commission. We in Durham had 9s. 6d. a day bonus and we had the Sankey Award of 2s. a day. You allowed us to take it so long as we were doing the dirty work of winning the war for you but, as soon as we won the war, we were locked out and the work was taken away from us. The same thing happened in 1926. We have had the bitter experience of two lock-outs between the two wars. You talk about recruiting boys for the industry. Why not some of the boys from the other side of the House? If the industry is so attractive, if the wages are so good and the hours so short, with everything in the miner's favour, why is it necessary to exhort miners to breed miners?
We are not standing here continually to produce wealth for you people; why should we? The only way to recruit miners to the industry is to take the mines out of the hands of the coalowners and place them in those of the people. That will guarantee sympathy for every boy who goes underground. They will be guaranteed a decent standard of living and necessary precautions will be taken to ensure their safety. I have known scores of cases where dangerous risks have been taken by the men in the pit. I have seen men buried trying to rescue others who have suffered because of this nasty, competitive piece-work system of so much a tub. That has to be abolished. Everyone who goes underground should be guaranteed that for a day's work he will get a day's wage. He never will get it as long as the pits are privately owned.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I would remind the House that we must not develop the Debate along those lines.

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Sloan: My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) said that he was speaking from the heart. Our poet Robert Burns says:
The heart's aye the pairt that mak's us richt or wrang.
I have no doubt that my hon. Friend was speaking sincerely and from the bottom of his heart. I wonder why we always find


that this great basic industry presents such a baffling problem. Many people have tried to solve it, and the industry still appears to be in the doldrums. This discussion has ranged largely round the question of the recruitment of labour to the mines. That is a baffling problem in itself, and it will baffle any Minister who attempts to solve it. The fact remains, however we may attempt to clothe it in statistics, that the entry of youths into the mining industry has decreased from 25,000 to 10,000 or 12,000. The reasons are simple. There is, first, the reluctance of youths to go into such a dangerous occupation; and, second, there is the reason, stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett, namely, the desire of parents to direct their children to some occupation not as dangerous and disagreeable as mining.
We have tried to staff the pits by compulsion. That has failed, and I am not surprised, and nor is any hon. Member who has experience of mining districts. Coalowners have never done reminding us that we cannot improve production by increasing wages. I am not inclined to disagree with them, because to improve wages alone will never bring increased production. It is true that when wages are higher absenteeism increases. Nobody denies that. The coalowners tried to solve the question of production in the period mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett, when they said, "Take off the control and let us deal with the matter in our own way, and we will increase production." They reduced wages by 9s. 6d. to 12S. 6d. a day, which meant that, if the miner and his family were to live at all, he had to work every hour it was possible to get to the mines. That is one way of increasing production. It is one way, however, of destroying the mining industry.
Something much more fundamental is required if we are to staff the mines and get people who are prepared to do the work. Something more than just throwing a handful of corn to the horse at the end of the day is necessary. Some of the young men who have been brought into the mining industry are causing great concern in the minefields. I attended a meeting on Friday where the question of these youths was under consideration. Although there were both coalowners and miners' representatives present, and the regional

controller and his people were there, we did not hear any such statement as that made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, that 30, 40 or 50 per cent. of the Bevin boys had indicated their intention of staying. As a matter of fact, it is difficult to get them to work at all. Discipline has become deplorable These lads know that they have been directed to the mines, and there is practically no method of having any control over them. They will never produce coal. When the scheme was put into operation we stated here that it was bound to fail.
One cannot expect to get coal production by directing lads of this kind to the mines. All that it is doing is to load the man-power at the collieries, and that is reflecting itself in the figures of output per man-shift. The more men there are on the colliery books, the more the output per man-shift is reduced if there is not a corresponding increase of coal output. Absenteeism and a lot of other things are blamed for the reduction, whereas it is due to the overloading of the man-power at the collieries. These youths who have been directed into the mining districts are neither blind nor deaf. They can see the conditions under which men are expected to do their jobs, and they listen to the history of mining life. They have been transplanted into the most bleak districts in the country, and they cannot help comparing the desolate towns and villages of the mining districts with the towns and villages they have left. Then, too, the houses and the social surroundings are very different from what they are used to. They hear and see that, although the miner produces the most valuable commodity, on which our very industrial life depends, he still remains the poorest of men.
It is a remarkable fact which is worth examining that, although coal has created many rich men and millionaires, it has never in the history of the industry brought prosperity to the people in the minefields. There is not a single case where it has brought prosperity to an area. It has made fortunes for certain individuals, but for the people engaged in the industry it has brought nothing but poverty and misery. They see the miner's life always in jeopardy. They see men being brought out from the pit either dead or injured. It is not something to which they can look forward with any relish.


They see that death and disease are always round the corner. They see miners afflicted with nystagmus, silicosis, pneumoconiosis or industrial dermatitis, crippled by rheumatism or sciatica, or twisted and doubled up. Does anyone think that such sights will induce these fresh young men to join this great industry that is bound up with our prosperity?
I cannot for the life of me understand why the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Fuel and Power, or any of this fanciful set of people in this country imagine that they can solve the mining industry and increase production by such a method, which is creating more difficulty than ever. We hope that something will be done. It is not my problem to do it. It is the problem of the Minister. I get nothing out of it and my workmen get nothing out of it. They will get their wages from week to week while there is employment, but it is something that ought to be settled, on some policy whereby the arduous nature of the industry can be relieved a bit.
We have heard a lot about the new mining machinery and we have been waiting for the American report. We understand that there are disclosures and suggestions and that the committee of experts have placed on paper their opinion as to how output could be improved. All that was months ago, yet hon. Members who discuss mining problems in this House are still in ignorance of what the report contains. Something should be done to let us know what is in it. I hope that coal output will be increased although, as I say, it is not my business; but if the industry of the country is to be maintained after the war and we are to have this valuable product for export, it will be necessary to secure it and it is high time that some forward policy were taken to ensure that we shall have increased coal production.

5.44 P.m.

Major Braithwaite: I should not intervene in this Debate did I not feel that a tremendous responsibility rests upon Members of this House to evolve some sort of scheme to make this essential industry attractive to the people who have to work in it. Many things are wrong with it, as we all know, but it does not help the situation to go over the old ground time after time without any idea of what we are going to do in the future. We obviously must have some plan

whereby these young men coming into the industry are to find a congenial occupation there. Coalmining, and mining generally, is an honourable and necessary occupation, and every nation will have to find a quota of people to do it, if those nations are to stay strong in the industrial world. Certainly this country can ill afford to spare any effort to get the maximum possible production from this great source of national wealth which has brought our country to the great heights to which it has risen.
A great deal of abuse has been showered on the miners in many ways, but the miners themselves, as individuals, have worked as hard and as diligently as any other section of the population in this country during the war. The statistics of the drop in production of the miners are far less than the drop in production of building trade workers. That is a very serious statement to make, but I make it in all sincerity in this House. It is no good saying that these men have not done their job. We have altered their conditions in this war, which makes it impossible for them to carry on in the same way that they did before the war. In the early days of the war I pleaded with the Minister to restore the five-day week, particularly where the mines were mechanised. I said then, and say to-day, that by putting the mining industry back on a five-day week we should get as much coal as with a six-day week and have a revived industry. The men would have some chance of recuperating. This going down day after day out of the daylight, without enjoyment of ordinary pursuits, is something that many people do not understand. It has a psychological effect upon the minds of the men.
At the same time, I want the mining industry, owners and miners alike, to know that they have a joint responsibility to this country which this House could not allow them to evade. This industry must prepare to be a dominant and strong industry, capable of carrying on its back other industries which make the whole life of the nation possible. Always we are told that recruitment would be better if the mines were nationalised. Believe me, that does not matter a row of pins if the mines are controlled properly. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have full powers to-day just as they would have if the mines were nationalised. Every


single power that we could give to a Government Department to run the mines is in the Minister's hands to-day. It is no use saying that to change the system would create a revolution in production. It would not do anything of the sort.
We must have proper skilled technical advice, and careful thinking and planning so that men who are coming into the industry will see that it is upon a sound, prosperous basis. Nobody likes to go on flogging a dead horse, but half the mines of this country are out-of-date, and they are dead horses. There has not been that long-term vision there should have been. No industry can afford to stand still. It must progress if it is to keep up with modem ideas. There are opportunities in this industry of giving to the work-people a greater expansion of productive power than in any industry I know of, if the necessary arrangements can be properly brought along.
On the other hand, if we are to have continued political revolution in this industry it will get the miners and the country nowhere. We must have a peaceful term during which some sound planning can be done. I believe that the wage structure set up by the Minister, giving a stable wage to the miners which is equitable in comparison with the wages in other industries, should afford an opportunity for a period of sound and careful planning which will do something to contribute to the future prosperity and strength of the industry. I earnestly hope that a great many of these boys who are coming into the pits will see the possibilities and will be able to handle the new machinery when it comes along, and so make it possible for the industry to prosper. An hon. Member opposite said that he would not put his boy into mining, but in a few years' time, if we can reorganise, I think he would be prepared to take those words back and to say that it is an honourable industry into which any man worthy of his salt and worthy to contribute to the national wellbeing would be glad to go.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. George Griiffiths: I would like to clear up the point about wages which the previous speaker has tried to put across. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) is now a coalowner; he told us that the

other day. I wonder whether he is in the Coalowners' Association, and whether he is putting this point across to members similar to the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster). When he gets behind closed doors with the coalowners they have possibly another tale to tell him. I will leave that for the moment. I know he is very enthusiastic. He has been enthusiastic about what we call this "sunshine coal." One of my friends says it has been very profitable to some folk. We cannot get to know from the Ministry of Fuel and Power what this "sunshine coal" costs. Travelling up and down the country one sees hundreds and thousands of tons going to waste at the present time. It one travels into Derbyshire, there are thousands of tons there. Water is now coming on it and finding the muck in it, and it looks almost like whitewash.
I wish to turn to this question of wages and the Bevin boys, because on the day the Minister of Labour came to this House and announced that he would take a ballot of all the boys in the country to go into the mines I jumped up and asked if there was to be a Debate in this House. The Minister said he did not know whether the House required a Debate, but Members on this side of the House do know, and have repeatedly told him that the more Bevin boys went into the pits the less coal per head there would be, taking the average for the people working in and about the mines. [Interruption.] Certainly it is how the figure is brought down. These boys are brought in, and one or two men have to watch them for a month or two. It is all very well for the hon. Member to shake his head. In theory it may not be so, but in practice it is. There was talk of sending these lads to the coal face within about 10 minutes, but according to the regulations they cannot be sent to the coal face within two years, except under practical supervision. Does not that mean watching them and caring for them? When a man has an unskilled lad with him and he is anywhere near the coal face his attention is taken off his work and directed to the lad.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville), I know something about this point. We have been in the mining industry. I have had lads under me previous to my coming to this House.


We had to sign for them—at least that used to be so, I do not know whether that is the case to-day—and were responsible for them. It is no use saying when these Bevin boys are put into the industry that it will increase production. I agree there are a few of these Bevin boys who are as good as gold, a few of them. I give them credit for it. But if you take a basket of nuts, and pick out the best, you will have two or three in your hand and the rest are left in the basket. That has been the case as far as these Bevin boys are concerned.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose said that miners had a guaranteed wage. That is all moonshine, it is ridiculous. He does not yet understand wages in the mining industry. A man only gets the guaranteed wage if he works six days a week, and what man at the coal face can do that to-day? I say that a man working at the coal face for five days a week is doing as much as any healthy man can do. He may take it out of himself by working six days in one week, but then he comes back next week for four days, and there is no guaranteed wage for him. If a man works for five days a week he is not guaranteed his Porter award of £5 that week. Why? Because he has lost a shift. There are exceptionally few men working in the mines to-day who get the guaranteed wage. Only some men at a day wage get a guaranteed wage. In fact I know there are some men at the present time who have got easy jabs. There are a few easy jobs in the pit, but not at the coal face. [Interruption,] Somebody says "The manager." We will leave the managers out of this. They are worried, they can hardly get any sleep. But some men have an easy job and they may be doing double shifts. I saw one of my friends the other day, aged about 64 years. He said, "I have eleven shifts in this week," I said "What have you been doing?" He replied, "I am in the stables." He can manage eleven shifts in the stables, feeding the horses, but there is no man who can, week in and week out, work his six shifts at the pit face.
The hon. and gallant Member on the other side delighted me with one sentence. Now he is in the Coalowners' Association he will be able to put this across both to the Derbyshire coalowners and the Yorkshire coalowners. He can say, "Five

days a week the pit must work. Are the men to get six days' wage for it? "When he puts that across at Sheffield, Nottingham or Chesterfield it will be a case of the devil among the tailors with the coal-owners. They say they want the six days' work as it is now. I hope when the Minister replies he will give us some statistics about these Bevin boys. The hon. and gallant Member for Fylde has stated that about 40 per cent. of the Bevin boys have said they would stay in the industry. I am astounded. I do not think any man who has had any conversation with them can say that four out of 10 have so decided. I was on my feet quickly to ask him about it. I will say that there are not two Bevin boys out of 10 of that view.

Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster: Let us get this right. It is no good the non. Member shouting across at me like that. What I said in fact was that four months ago 40 per cent. of the Bevin boys and optants had opted to stay after the war. I said I had to make a change to-day, because in the light of further experience it was shown that the optants exceeded the percentage of the Bevin boys who wish to stay. In the case of the Bevin boys the percentage was from 22½ to 25. While in the case of the optants the percentage was 50. I am not saying that 40 per cent. of the Bevin boys opted to stay in. I have said that a percentage of about 25 have done so. Even if we reduced that by a further figure it is considerably in advance of the figure put forward by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker).
It being Six o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain McEwen.]

Mr. Griffiths: Of course, the hon. and gallant Member used the figure of 40 per cent.—he spoke of optants and Bevin boys. I am sorry that I misquoted him. But I will guarantee that when the war is over, and these lads have the opportunity to go out, if the hon. and gallant Member and I survive the next General Election I shall be able to prove to him that these lads have gone back in a very short time to the jobs they had before they came into the industry, or into apprenticeship, or to Cambridge, Oxford, or some other such place.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Ness Edwards: I want to say to the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) how pleased we are to have his testimony in these Debates, and how refreshing it is to hear some of his forthright statements. One thing that impressed me was his remark that he hoped that the industry would become an honourable industry. The assumption is that it is the reverse to-day.

Major Braithwaite: I made no suggestion that this was a dishonourable industry now, or that it had been at any other time; but I said that I hoped it would form an honourable occupation, in accordance with the desire of those who wish to work in it.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman has fallen from the position of grace in which I put him. Perhaps he will improve as time goes on. Some time ago, I was invited by the superintendent of one of the Bevin boys' hostels to go and talk to the boys in an objective way about the necessity of pulling their weight in this industry. After seeing the hostel, I quite understood the desire of many people in the village to go and live there. These boys are very well housed, and the amenities that they enjoy are admirable. On the whole, these Bevin, boys are a fine type of boys. What amazed me was to hear that they are called the "storm troopers" of the industry. While I felt, when this procedure was introduced, that they would have no effect in improving production, I was pleased that a knowledge of this industry was being spread more widely among the population, and that the hazards and ugliness of this occupation would be better understood as a result. I tried to point out to these boys that this industry was at the basis of prosperity in this country, that our hopes as an industrial nation rested upon this industry, and that at some time someone would have to put the industry on a basis which was sure and stable if Britain was to survive. I tried to capture their imaginations in that way.
I am sorry to say that these Bevin boys were utterly cynical about it all. The boys from the public schools, who had had the maximum educational opportunity, were the most scathing in their condemnation of the industry. They were horrified

by the nature of their employment. They regarded the industry as one of the last in which they would like to obtain a livelihood. It is very regrettable; because if this industry perishes, Britain perishes. I have seen that the coalowners, too, have recognised this, and have appointed Mr. Robert Foot. [Interruption.] I hope he will work his passage and to the credit of the country. He has a marvellous chance and a stupendous job—a job at which my hon. Friend and his chief have failed. If the loss of production of coal in this country had been as great in his predecessor's time he would not have lasted half the time. With the present Minister of Fuel and Power in charge, production in the collieries has decreased all the time. We have had a bit of make-weight from the "sunshine coal" face—probably the only place where an increase has come about.
Mr. Robert Foot, in a letter to "The Times" to-day, has also discovered that there is something wrong with this industry. He has already discovered that, until this industry is put right, it will retain no one and only a sense of moral duty will keep any body of men in that industry. Two things, in my view, are necessary. First, this industry, more than any other, ought to be an industry run in the interests of the nation as a whole, because it is such an ugly occupation that it must be given a moral purpose. The next thing is that it must be conducted in such a way as to give the maximum contribution to our national wealth, and, in making that maximum contribution, no section in that industry should be drawing an undue proportion of the wealth that is produced. I think those are the lines on which every decent citizen ought to proceed in looking at this industry. I do not want these political rows in the mining industry. They do not do the miners any good; I do not care what harm they do to the coal-owners. I think they are the most backward, tribal section of employers that exist in this country.
The present form of control has contributed as much to the unsettlement of the minds of the Bevin boys as the nature of the industry itself. Many of these boys are exceedingly intelligent. They have had maximum opportunities of seeing other industries, and they know how they are being run. They then


come into the mining industry, and they see how it is run under this farce of control. They see so many men, who carry out their own functions of service to the employer with legal authority, whose salaries are paid by the State, and who still discharge the old functions of the employers' representatives under the guise of nominees of control. I regret very much, from the production point of view, that this experiment is a failure, but I am very glad in my heart that knowledge of the hazards of the mining industry has been made more general to the whole of this nation.

6.9 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Tom Smith): When the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) gave notice in July that he would raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, he had in mind a fairly narrow point, but a very important one. That was the reluctance of boys from miners' families to go underground. With his usual fairness and sincerity, the hon. Member dealt with that to-day, but he could not limit it, and dealt with the general question of man-power in the industry, and from that, we have ranged over nearly every topic connected with the industry. I have only one thing to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I do not agree with his statement that the present control has failed.

Mr. Ness Edwards: It has.

Mr. Smith: It has not. I do not want to debate it, but I reserve the right to say that I do not agree that it has failed, and at some other time we might pursue that matter. Let us look at the position we are in to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh asked that a committee be set up to ascertain why young men will not go down the coal mines. There is no need for a committee. We had a committee a couple of years ago which issued a report called the Forster Report. It was an excellent report and anyone who will read paragraph 8 very carefully will find that there is absolute clarity as to why boys are reluctant to go underground. My hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Glanville) said that he had a lad who had decided at an early age that he would not work in the pit if he could help it. The reluctance of boys to go under-

ground is not a new thing. It started many years ago. My own father, who was a miner, always said that I would never work in the pit while he lived, and I did not. I went into the pit after he died.

Mr. James Griffiths: The other day I re-read the Samuel Commission Report and found there evidence that in the previous year 30,000 young lads had volunteered for the pit in excess of the places available, so that up to 1927 there were more boys willing to go to the pit than were taken.

Mr. Smith: I was coming to that point. In those days men working in the pit used to say, "My lad will not work in the pit if I can help it." It is the natural desire of parents to see their boys get on, and many miners' boys have attended secondary schools and have come out with distinction, as anyone who has spent any time on the Miners' Welfare Scheme will know. These parents want their boys to get on. In those days there was this difference. Mining was more in isolation than it is to-day. There was no transport to neighbouring places and scarcely any other occupation in the locality, and boys were compelled to go underground. About 30,000 boys volunteered for the mines in 1924, and there are about 12,000 a year now going down the mines.
This is a serious thing and a problem that has to be faced. Frankly, we know the reason why they do not go down. While there is a lot to be done in mining, you can never make it as comfortable as work in an office. It will always be a hard industry, and when the hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) told me that mining is not an honourable occupation he could not mean that, for anyone who has worked in the pit is not ashamed of his occupation. This question of work in the mines is being tackled. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh wanted to give a number of inducements. Let us be frank. We have recently made some progress with regard to conditions underground generally, and with regard to the position of boys in particular. The Porter Tribunal, among other things, recommended that the youths in the pit should be entitled to a substantial increase in wages, and they got a minimum wage of 70s. at 18, rising to £5 a week at 21 years of age, with corresponding slight decreases to certain


workers. Compared with what it was before, we have made some progress, and that is all to the good.

Mr. Sloan: Ten shillings a week.

Mr. Smith: It was more than 10s. a week. We know what the boys' wages were, and it was certainly an advance in the right direction. Another thing that has to be kept in mind is what has already been done. One of the worst features of going into the pit in the old days as a boy was that you had no training. Nobody taught you anything.

Mr. Sloan: Your father trained you.

Mr. Smith: Not in every part of the coalfields. That system was not uniform. If a boy got with a decent fellow, he taught him, but there was no training in the sense in which we have it to-day.

Mr. Sloan: What value does the hon. Gentleman place on the training they are getting now?

Mr. Smith: If we are to admit that training does not matter, for heaven's sake let us say so, but the training we are giving to-day to juveniles is excellent. I want to pay a tribute to the Forster Report—

Mr. Foster: It is a waste of time.

Mr. Smith: With regard to juvenile training, I do not think it is a waste of time. I went down to see one pit which has started training and I saw the boys in the classroom in the successive stages until they were ready to go to the coal face. They were a most alert body of boys. They were given lectures and shown models of the mine. They were shown how to work a safety lamp, they were taken into a pit and into a gallery, where they were taught how to put the chain on the end of a locker, and so on. They were taught how to set props and withdraw props and, when they got to the working face, they had acquired some pit sense and some safety-first principles. Do not let us be ashamed to admit the progress we are making.

Mr. Foster: Is the hon. Gentleman submitting that you can make colliers or miners in the classroom?

Mr Smith: No, Sir.

Mr. Foster: Do they not require practical experience before they reach that stage?

Mr. Smith: We are talking about training for juveniles, and I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) will agree with me, looking back on his own experience, that it is certainly right to have these boys trained before they get underground, and, when they get underground, before they start the risky hard work. The Forster Report was issued in July, 1942. By November a provisional training scheme was set up. On 1st February, 1944, an order was made dealing with the training of both dilutees, optants and elderly people and also of juveniles. My hon. Friends may be interested to learn that a good deal of progress has been made with regard to these training centres. Officers are being appointed, and real progress is being made. I have attended some of the classes, and I have seen the interest of the boys. While I appreciate that there is a good deal to be done, let us admit that we are making some progress.
So far as the Bevin boys are concerned, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) gave his experiences and others have given theirs; may I give mine? I have been to some of the hostels, and the accommodation and amenities are excellent. I have talked to a good many Bevin boys in the pits and away from the pits. While some do not like the work, detest it, and are prepared to leave the moment they can get out, war or no war, there are others who are making the best of it.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, making the best of it.

Mr. Smith: I said, "How do you like it?" They said, "We do not like it at all." "Are you making the best of it?" "Certainly." "What is going to happen when it is over?" One said, "So far as I am concerned, I am going back to Kent as quickly as I can"; but some of them said, and that pleased me, "Well, after all, it is not quite as bad working underground as we had been led to believe."

Mr. Murray: Did my hon. Friend ask how many would stay in the industry?

Mr. Smith: I do not agree with any of the percentages which have been given. In the interests of the future of


the industry, I hope the figure given by the hon. and gallant Member for Fylde (Lieut.-Colonel Lancaster) is correct. I will put it no higher than that. We are all agreed that there is something wrong with the industry, and that something must be done. It has been said more than once that the industry must be made more attractive, and I agree. There are many ways in which it can be made more attractive.

Mr. Sloan: Tell us.

Mr. Smith: I could detail a lot, without going into the question of the ownership of the industry. For example, when lads work underground, there ought at least to be a guarantee of a measure of security and some promise of advancement, although nobody can tell me that every boy going into a pit will become a colliery manager, because he will not. Our own Federation appreciated, some years ago, the fact that a number of things could be done to make the industry attractive. With regard to safety, I want to say that if there is anything that can be done to make pits safer than they are now, it ought to be done without any regard to the cost involved. I am pleased to say that with the attention that is now being paid to underground conditions, there is a slight reduction in our fatal accident rate, which is certainly all to the good. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) will not mind me saying so, I think he is entitled to a little credit for the appointment of additional inspectors, for which he was responsible some time ago, and the attention paid to roof control by some very efficient people.
With regard to wages and hours, a five-day week has been put forward. I have never been adverse to that, but the trouble is to get it from the industry. We all know pits where it is physically impossible for men to work six days a week at the coal face. A colliery manager told me recently that he did not expect his men to do it. But the question of a five-day week, or a shorter working day, is not one that can be dealt with in an Adjournment Debate. I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckrose that the industry itself is not agreed on the five-day week, but my right hon. Friend is prepared to consider anything that can be put forward which will make for betterment in this industry. In addition to what can be done under-

ground, if mining in the future is to live, and young men are not to leave their colliery villages, more attention must be paid to social conditions in their localities. Attention has certainly to be paid to social conditions—better houses and so on. I hope to see the time come when we shall tackle that, and the removal of pit heaps. We have been discussing means of doing it and I am satisfied that we can do it if we get down to it.
With regard to wastage, the greatest wastage that we have at the moment is through men who leave the industry on medical certificates. That is not an easy question to tackle but it is one that is constantly under review. With regard to wastage from accidents—the fatal accident rate is still showing a decline—we have made some progress with regard to rehabilitation in fracture cases. The rehabilitation centres in different parts of the country are excellent. They are doing a fine job of work and they are appreciated by the patients who have been treated in them. With regard to silicosis, we have been able through the Home Office to do a little. With regard to pneumoconiosis, a problem which has given South Wales anxiety and which wants watching constantly, we have not lost any time in our efforts to prevent it. On the whole, while there is still a lot to be done, let us admit that we have made some progress.
As one who has spent the whole of his working life in the industry, it has been one of my greatest pleasures to be able to pay attention to health, welfare and safety during these two and a half years, and I am certainly willing to give an account of my stewardship anywhere, at any time. While there is still much to be done, a lot has been and is being done and I think we ought to admit it. No one complains of my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh raising this subject. The problem of man-power in the pits is receiving our attention nearly every day of the week. Anything we can do to maintain adequate man-power we shall do but it is not easy problem. "Difficult as it is, we have done what we believe to be the right thing and we shall continue to do it.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Six o' Clock.